CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000567/3274
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000567
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Harish Kumar
628/3, Shivaji Road, Pul Mithaai,
Near Aazad Market,
Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr.Ved Prakash
Asstt. Commissioner & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Land and Estate Department Town Hall,
Delhi-110006.
RTI application filed on : 25/04/2008
PIO replied : 28/05/2008
First appeal filed on : 16/06/2008
First Appellate Authority order : Not replied.
Second Appeal filed on : 24/03/2009
The appellant had asked following information from Land and Estate Department, in his
RTI application:-
Sr. No. Information sought PIO’s reply
1. The details of the conservation The areas described by you have been already
and preservation of commercial provided with the answer.
and residential properties and
shops by the MCD land and
property department in Urban,
Central, Southern, Western,
Rohini, Karol Bagh, Narela,
Najafgarh, Shahdara(Northern-
Western) and Civil Lines areas.
2. Give details that how many -As above-
market, residential properties,
commercial properties and free
hold properties, etc are under the
Land and Property Department,
MCD. And what is the current
status of the department with
total numbers, including brief
address, of that under the Right
to Information Act, as per
Section 2 (F) provide the copies
of the documents or
computerized CD.
3. The details of the conservation According to answer 1 and 2 almost 7,700
and preservation of commercial residential and commercial properties were
and residential properties and transferred by the land and property
shops during the year 2006-07 Department under Government of India.
by the MCD, Nirman Bhawan
Office, Govt. of India.
4. Furnish certified copies of the The copies of the documents can be obtained in
rules and norms under which the afternoon in any day after submitted the
Commercial shops, residential appropriate fees.
complex, free hold properties,
are transferred with the official
comments
5. The details relating to size floors In terms of the size of Shops located in
and height of all shops as Phaharganj that all shops have different size
approved by the MCD specially and how much floors have been built up, no
the details of height, floor of the such information is available in the file.
shops of Azad Market, Teliwara,
New Qutub Raod, Hathi Khana,
Pahar Ganj, Khurshid Market,
P.K.Road, Gulabi Baag.
6. The size and details concerning -As above-
the height and number of floors
of the shops in Amrit Kour Mkt.
Ram Nagar, M.M.Road, Thana,
under the S.P.Zone area.
Accompanied by the Proprietary
rights of the same.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar
Respondent : Absent
The appellant states that the reply of the PIO dated 28/05/2008 has been posted on 27/06/2008.
He has attached the copy of the speed post envelope and receipt with the appeal. He also states
that the information has not been provided completely. The appellant is willing to inspect the
records.
The First Appellate Authority is guilty of dereliction of duty by not passing any order on the
appeal.
The PIO appears to have sent the reply on 27/06/2008 that is 30 days later than the required date.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO to facilitate the inspection of records on points 1
to 6 of the RTI query before 30 May 2009. If the appellant wants photocopy of the
records the PIO will provide upto 100 pages free of cost.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO Mr. Ved Prakash Asst. Commission L&E, 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. He has given the reply 30 days late. 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. The penalty le The issue before the
Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO 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. 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 5 June, 2009. He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 15 June 2009 at 4.30pm
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. The penalty attracted by the PIO is at Rs. 250 per day of delay, ie. Rs.250*30=
Rs.7500/-.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15th May, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)