CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000403/12071Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000403
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma
C-25, Bhagat Singh Colony,
New Usmaan pur, Delhi-110053.
Respondent : Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh
The then FSO (C-02) & Deemed PIO
(Presently FSO(C-68))
Food and Supplies Department, GNCTD
DC (North East) Office Complex,
Weavers Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi ;
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2010
PIO replied : 27/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 08/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 02/02/2011
Sl. Information Sought About
1. Please provide photocopy of Master Card Register regarding of tel. no. (5506) and printout of
Master Card Register from the circle (55) .
2. Please provide the photocopy and printout of Sales Register from tel. no. (5506) and Circle (55)
of May-June.
3. How many cards gets stamps? How many cards are renewed by Tel. No. (5506)? Give the serial
numbers.
4. a) Please provide the attested receipts of …………………………………
PIO Reply:
Not attached with the appeal.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied.
Order of the FAA:
“Appellant is satisfied with the reply furnished by PIO(North) on point no. 1, 2, 5 & 7. he stated that the PIO has
asked to deposit Rs. 900/- in response to point no. 4 &5 for providing photocopies of Master Card register and Sales
Register. Accordingly, Rs 900/- deposited vide TR receipt no. 25558 dated 07/09/2010. However, the appellant had
not received photocopy of documents despite of several visits to the office of Asst. Commissioner (North) and
Circle office. The required photocopies of documents were not provided to him the stipulated time frame despite of
depositing the requisite amount, therefore, the same must but available to him free of cost.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant was not satisfied.
Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 April 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. H. P. Meena, PIO & AC (North); Mr. Shashi Kant, FSO(C-02);
“The PIO had demanded additional fee of Rs.900/- which the Appellant had paid on 07/09/2010. The RTI
application has been made on 22/07/2010 and the demand for additional fee was sent 27/08/2010, which was an
illegal demand. The Appellant paid Rs.900/- on 07/09/2010 yet no information was provided to the Appellant. Only
after the order of the FAA information was sent to the Appellant on 25/01/2011. This information is also
incomplete and the PIO is directed to send the following information to the Appellant:
1- It has been claimed that all records of the ration shop FPS 4136 (5506) were stolen on 11/01/2009 and a
compliant was made about this to the police on 18/03/2009. However, records from 11/01/2009 upto
10/04/2010 which should be available have not been provided to the Appellant. The Rs.900/- wrongly
taken from the Appellant has been refunded to him.
The Respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information to the Appellant was Mr. K. P.
Singh the then FSO(C-02).
It is clear that the Appellant has been harassed by not providing the information, asking him illegally to pay the
additional fee and even after this not providing the information. In view of this the Commission directs the Food
and Supply Department to give a compensation to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him and the
delay in providing the information. The Commission under its powers under Section-19(8)(b) of the RTI Act
awards compensation of Rs.3000/- to the Appellant.”
Commission’s Decision dated 20 April 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the provide the information for the period 11/01/2009 to
10/04/2010 to the Appellant free of cost before 10 May 2011.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.3000/- as compensation is sent from the
Department to the Appellant before 15 June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. K. P. Singh
the then FSO(C-02) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the
time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI
Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial
of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to
him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. K. P. Singh the then FSO(C-02) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 18 May
2011 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.”
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 18 May 2011:
The following were present
Respondent : Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) presently FSO(C-68) & Deemed PIO, DC (North East)
Office Complex, Weavers Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi ;
The information is being shown as having been sent to the Appellant on 03/05/2011 after the order of the
Commission. The RTI application was filed on 22/07/2010 and the Appellant was asked to deposit additional fee of
`900/- by the PIO vide letter dated 27/08/2010. The Appellant deposited the additional fee of `900/- on 07/09/2010
but the information was not sent to him. The respondent and deemed PIO Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO(C-
02) has given written submission and admits that the appellant showed him the receipt of payment in October 2010
yet he did not send the information to the Appellant. He also claims that there is no system in the department
Page 2 of 4
whereby information about payments made of additional fees would be informed to the Deemed PIOs. However, he
has admitted that he was aware that the payment had been made. He has no explanation to offer why the
information was not dispatched to the Appellant. The Appellant had paid `900/- and yet did not receive the
information.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable
cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified
under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed
in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed
twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose
penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a
request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, who denied the request.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till
the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to
impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the
matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the
PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
Since the appellant had paid the amount on 07/09/2010 he should have been given the information immediately.
Even if it is assumed that the department is running with no system of informing the PIO or Deemed PIO about the
payment of money as additional fee for an RTI application, the Deemed PIO Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO
(C-02) has accepted that the Appellant came and showed him proof of paying the additional fee in October 2010.
Yet he did not send the information to the appellant as per his own admission. The information has finally been
provided to the Appellant only on 03/05/2011 after the order of the Commission. The Appellant claims that he was
transferred from his job on 14 November 2010. Since he had not sent the information no one else could have sent
the information to the appellant subsequently. It is clear that Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) is clearly
responsible for the complete delay in providing the information to the appellant. Once an officer responsible for
providing the information fails in his duty it is likely that information would only be provided when the
Commission intervenes in the matter. Thus Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) is clear responsible for the
entire delay in providing the information to the appellant.
Page 3 of 4
Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days and no reasonable cause has been offered
for the delay, the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on
Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) & Deemed PIO.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) &
Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days,
the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh `25000/ which is the
maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `25000/-
from the salary of Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh and remit the same by a demand draft or a
Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi
and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy
Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per month every
month from the salary of Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month
starting from June 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of
October, 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)
CC: To,
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 4 of 4