CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002345/9612Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002345
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
9561, Azad Market,
Library Road, Delhi - 110006.
Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
Deemed PIO & Record Keeper
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara North Zone,
Near Keshav Chowk, Shahdra, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 22/03/2010
PIO replied : 04/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 14/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 20/08/2010
Information requires regarding construction of building in hold Shahdara North Zone for each and
every ward for the period January 2009 to March 2010.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. List of upto date sanctioned building plans 313 building plan for the period of Jan, 2009 to March,
along with property no. and address of the 2010 had been sanctioned by the department. List could
owner. be obtained from the department on any working day.
2. Number of building which had been 317 building had been booked for unauthorized
booked. construction by building department, Shah South Zone.
List could be obtained from the department on any
working day.
3. Number of buildings which had been 25 properties had been sealed against unauthorized
sealed. construction by building department, Shah South Zone.
List could be obtained from the department on any
working day.
4. Number of buildings which had been 442 properties had been sealed against unauthorized
demolished. construction by building department, Shah South Zone.
List could be obtained from the department on any
working day.
5. Details of action taken in accordance with Action will be taken as per MCD Act.
the Commissioner’s order dated
15/05/2010 vide circular no. D/172/Addl.
Commissioner(E)/2000 on the booked
properties.
6. Photocopies of all FIR registered by the As described ion point no. 2.
MCD against the booked properties
Page 1 of 5
according to the said Commissioner’s
order.
7. If no FIR has been registered then the Action will be taken as per MCD Act.
name of the person responsible for the
same.
8. Whether it was a violation of the As described ion point no. 2.
Commissioner’s order.
9. Request to allow inspection of files The Appellant could inspect the record available in
related to booked, sealed and demolished building Deptt., Shah North Zone, on any working day
properties. after fixing time with EE(Bldg.).
10. Request to allow inspection Misal Band As above.
register.
11. Request to all D. C. Diary Register. Did not pertain to Building Deptt., Shah. North Zone.
First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order noted that the information had been provided however, copy of the documents
desired by the Appellant, which ran into 300 pages, had not been provided to him. He further asked the
PIO to give the photocopies of the documents to the Appellant free of cost as the information had been
provided to him after 30 days. The FAA directed the PIO to give inspection of the records by the
Appellant on any mutual agreed date within 2 weeks.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 05/10/2010:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE(B-II) on behalf of Mr. Surender Singh, Executive Engineer (B-II);
“The photocopies of the missal band register and sealing register should have been provided by the
PIO which he failed to do. As far as list of sanctioned building plans are concerned the public authority
maintains the register which is of a large size and there is no reason why the photocopy of the register
could not have been offered to the appellant. It is evident that PIOs are being completely careless and not
providing information which could be easily provided. In this manner there is a loss of the revenue of
additional fees which could be charged under RTI and this also results in unnecessary appeals coming
before the Commission. The respondent states that the person responsible for this was Mr. Surender
Singh, Executive Engineer (B-II) who was transferred out in the first week of August.”
Decision dated 05/10/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide attested photocopies of the missal band register,
sealing register and the sanctioned building plans register for the period January 2009 to
March 2010 to the appellant before 25 October 2010. The PIO will also give a statement to
the appellant that during this period no action has been taken under Section 466 and 467 of
the DMC Act.
Page 2 of 5
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Surender Singh the then Executive Engineer (B-II)within 30 days as required by the
law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. It appears that the deemed 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. Surender Singh the then Executive Engineer (B-II) will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 26 November 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the
information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of
having sent the information to the appellant.”
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing held on 26/11/2010:
Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Surinder Singh, Deemed PIO & the then EE(B)-II
“The then EE(B)-II Mr. Surinder Singh has stated that the FAA’s order dated 16/06/2010 was
never communicated to him, however it was only marked to the PIO & SE-I Mr. C.B. Singh and EE(B)-I
Mr. B.M.N. Rao. Mr. Surinder Singh has also stated that the OI(B) Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who is the
custodian of all the records of the Building Department is working jointly under the control of the EE(B)-I
and EE(B)-II. Mr. Surinder Singh was transferred to Shahdara South zone vide office order dated
26/07/2010. Mr. Singh has stated that in compliance of the Commission’s order the information had been
sent to the Appellant by the EE(B)-I Mr. B.M.N. Rao through speed post on 23/10/2010. Mr. Singh also
submitted the copy of the speed post receipt alongwith the covering letter dated 21/10/2010.
The Appellant has stated that he has still not received the information.”
Adjunct Decision on 26/11/2010:
“In view of the above stated facts, the Commission has decided to schedule another showcause
hearing on 30/12/2010 at 11:00 am. The Commission directs the EE(B)-I Mr. B.M.N. Rao to appear
before the Commission on 30/12/2010 at 11:00 am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) for not complying with the
FAA’s order dated 16/06/2010. He will also bring the copy of information with him as per the
Commission’s direction dated 05/10/2010.”
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 30/12/2010:
Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. B.M.N. Rao, the then EE(B-I) Shahdara North presently EE(DEMS), O/o of the
Director-in-Chief, Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi Gate, Delhi and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record
Keeper; Mr. Umed Singh, the then AE(B) Shahdara North Zone presently AE(B) at Rohini Zone,
Division-I, Sector-5, Rohini Delhi.
The then EE(B-I) Mr. B.M.N. Rao has submitted that he was on leave since 03/06/2010 to
24/06/2010. The FAA’s order dated 16/06/2010 was received on 18/06/2010 by the then officiating EE(B-
I) Mr. Umed Singh, who had forwarded the same to the Deemed PIO & Record Keeper Mr. Rakesh
Kumar on 18/06/2010. The deemed PIO Mr. Rakesh Kumar has submitted a copy of the relevant page of
Receipt Register stating that he had received the FAA’s order only on 20/08/2010. Mr. Rakesh has
claimed that the information had been provided to the Appellant on 23/10/2010 through speed post i.e.
after the Commission’s order dated 05/10/2010. However, the Appellant claimed that no information had
been provided to him.
Page 3 of 5
Despite of the Commission’s order Mr. B.M.N. Rao has brought a copy of covering letter dated
21/10/2010 without enclosures alongwith him. The FAA had clearly directed the PIO to provide an
opportunity of inspection to the Appellant within a period of two weeks as per mutual convenience.
However, no opportunity has been given to the Appellant till date. The Appellant states that he does not
need to inspect the records any longer since he has received the information.
The information has been sent to the Appellant only after the order of the Commission on 23/10/2010.
The order of the FAA is claimed to have been sent by Mr. Umed Singh on 18/06/2010 to Mr. Rakesh
Kumar who claims he received it only on 20/08/2010. Thus there is an unexplained gap of 62 days when it
is not known where the FAA’s order was lying. Mr. Rakesh Kumar however admits that he received the
FAA’s order on 20/08/2010 and did not provide the information until the reminder from the Information
Commission. After receiving the FAA’s order on 20/08/2010 the information was provided only on
23/10/2010 after a delay of 62 days.
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.
The Commission asked Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record Keeper to give reasons for the delay
of 62 days in providing the information. He states that he was over worked and looks after two divisions
all alone and hence was not able to provide the information. There is only one law in which there is a
personal liability of `250/- per day when an officer does not do his duty. It is unlikely that an officer does
Page 4 of 5
all other works but neglects the work in which he is likely to suffer a personal penalty of `250/- per day
for not doing his work. Since Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record Keeper has been offered to no
reasonable cause for the delay in providing the information after receiving the order of the FAA the
Commission imposes a penalty on him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of
delay for 62 days i.e. `15500/-.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record Keeper. Since
the delay in providing the correct information has been of 62 days, the Commission is
passing an order penalizing Mr. Rakesh Kumar `15,500/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `15,500/- from the salary of Mr. Rakesh Kumar 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 `3875/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Rakesh Kumar and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from February 2011. The total amount of `15,500/- will be remitted by 10th
of May, 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
30 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)
CC:
To,
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 5 of 5