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/2008/01467/SG/0413
Appeal No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01467/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Harish Kumar
628/3, Shivaji Road, Pool Mithai
Delhi-110006
Respondent 1 : Sri.Darshan Kumar (PIO)
Assistant Commissioner
Municipal Corporation Delhi
Sadar Pahar Ganj, Id-Gah Road,
Delhi-110006
RTI filed on : 10/04/2008
PIO replied : no reply
First appeal filed on : 16/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 28/052008
Second Appeal filed on : 21/08/2008
The appellant sought following information:
The appellant sought information regarding the order of appeal No. 918 dated 31/01/2008 (in
relation to ID 766 dated 07/01/2008 central establishment department), given on order No.
AC (ESH)/CED (C-J)/22008/ID No.776 dated 01/04/2008. The details are as follows:
The appellant wants attested copy of following documents:
1) Order copies.
2) All relevant papers communicated by DC/ Sadar Pahar Ganj to the Central
establishment department.
3) Any notification issued by the senior officer for modification of the order.
4) Action taken or any action being taken by the DC/ Sadar Pahar Ganj or any other
official remarks on the order.
There is no reply from PIO.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA disposed off the appeal and ordered in the order No. D-522 DC/SPZ/08, dated, “I
have gone through appeal No.40 DC/SPZ/08 filed by Shri Harish Kumar on dated 16/05/2008
and relying on his statement that he has not received any information in respect of his ID
application under RTI Act. Therefore PIO/AC/SPZ is directed to supply the requisite
information with in 05 working days.”
On receiving no information from the PIO, the appellant filed the second appeal.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 25 December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, 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 30 December, 2008. 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.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 December, 2008
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision numbering the letter for a
quick disposal.)