CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00871/SG/0814
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00871/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Man Mohan Gulati,
115-A, SFS, DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi-110007.
Respondent 1 : Dy. Commissioner & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Sadar Pahargunj Zone, Idgha,
Delhi-110006.
RTI application filed on : 23/11/2007
PIO replied : No Reply.
First appeal filed on : 18/01/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 08/05/2008
Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed application seeking as follows: The Appellant had asked to furnish the
following information/documents:
1. a) The grounds for misquoting the Write Petition Number as W.P. (C) no. 18574 of 2004 in
its preamble as W.P. (C) no. 187/2004.
b) The ground for misquoting MCD respondent No. 1 instead of no. 2 in Paragraph no. 1 of
the above referred affidavit.
2. The grounds for circumventing the order dated 07-11-05 of the Honorable Delhi High Court
which envisage survey of flats in the entire Gulabi Bagh, Colony comprising of 562flats
having similar projection as those of flat no. 115-C and not only those surrounding the
petitioner’s flat in SFS category.
3. The grounds for dealing false information in the affidavits vide paragraph 5 as no demolition
was under taken by MCD.
4. The copy of the survey report as carried out of flats, with number of projection in each flat
detailed in Para 3 of the affidavit.
The PIO’s Reply:
No Reply.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Id No. 1076/20, 1076/22, 1172, 1182/ S.P.Zone.
“The FAA said that in almost all the case, certain grounds and not the information condensed have
been asked for. In case the various grounds which are sought to be furnished are available on record,
the same may be supplied to the Appellant within 20 days time and in case no such grounds are
available, it can be said that the same are not within the ambit of information or record.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. Man Mohan Gulati
Respondent: Mr. C.B. Singh PIO
The PIO has given an appropriate reply to the appellant on 5/11/2008.
Decision:
Appeal is allowed.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
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. 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 January, 2009. If the PIO wishes to contend
that some other officer / officers are responsible for the delay since he has sought their
assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such
other officer / officers to be present with their explanations.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
1 January 2009
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)