CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000011/SG/9083Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000011/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Alok Mehrotra
R/o Summer House & Amar Hotel Estate
Kulri, Mussoorie.
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Yadav
Public Information Officer & Labour Welfare Commissioner
Government of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Labour Welfare Board, Labour Department
DTC Colony, Hari Nagar.
Delhi – 54.
RTI application filed on : 07/07/2009 PIO replied : 20/07/2009 First appeal filed on : 28/07/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 24/09/2009 Second Appeal received on : 12/11/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. When was the matter of rent fixation referred by your office to the As the matter is under subjudice
Delhi PWD? Please provide a copy of the reference letter in a Court of Law the
information can not be supplied
to the applicant at this point of
time.
2. Has any spot survey / inspection of the premises been conducted by As Above
your department and the PWO? If yes, please give the date of
inspection and also provide a copy of the report of the Inspecting
team
3. When the meeting of the RFC was held to finalize the past and As Above
proposed rent and what were the proposals of the committee? Please
provide a copy of the minutes.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order enclosed
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 August 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Pasi, Welfare Officer and deemed PIO;
“The respondent Mr. A. K. Pasi was asked to justify why the information has been refused by the
PIO. Mr. Pasi is a deemed PIO who has signed the sheet in which the information has been refused. The
deemed PIO has stated that since the matter is subjudice information will not be provided. This is without
any basis in the law. Denial of information in the RTI can only be based on the exemption of Section 8(1)
of the RTI Act. No reason has been advance under the law for refusing to disclose the information to the
appellant.”
Commission Decision dated 20 August 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before
30 August 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. A.
K. Pasi, Welfare Officer and deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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 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. A. K. Pasi, Welfare Officer and deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 04 October 2010 at 4.00pm 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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.”
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 04 October 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. S. C. Yadav, Public Information Officer & Labour Welfare Commissioner;
Mr. Sukhbir Singh, ASPIO (HQ), 5-Shyam Nath Marg, Delhi;
The respondents state that the information has been provided to the appellant on 25/08/2010 after
the order of the Commission. The respondents are also claiming that similar information had been sent to
the appellant on 27/11/2009.
The Commission has issued a showcause notice to Mr. A. K. Pasi, Welfare Office & Deemed PIO on 20
August 2010 and asked him to present himself today to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) under
RTI Act should not be levied on him for denying information without any basis in the law. He has
chosen to absent himself. It appears that the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days
and hence the maximum penalty of `25000/- would be attracted if Mr. Pasi does not show any reasonable
cause for the delay in providing the information. The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity
should be given to the PIO/Deemed PIO before levying penalty. The Commission is giving one last
chance to Mr. Pasi to justify his refusal to provide the information.
Page 2 of 3
Adjunct Decision:
Mr. A. K. Pasi, Welfare Officer is directed to present himself before the
Commission on 15 October 2010 at 4.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section
20(1) should not be levied on him.
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
04 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 3 of 3