Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. B.K. Kedia vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 8 May, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. B.K. Kedia vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 8 May, 2009
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
                            Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                                New Delhi - 110067.
                               Tel : + 91 11 26161796

                                                              Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000269/3147
                                                                Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000269

Complainant                                :        Mr. B.K. Kedia
                                                    Flat No G-5, Plot No 83
                                                    Associated Apartments,
                                                    I.P. Extn., Patparganj, Delhi 110092

Respondent                                  :       The Public Information Officer
                                                    Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                                    O/o Dy. Commissioner
                                                    Shahdara (South), Karkardooma, Delhi
Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. B.K Kedia had filed a RTI application with the PIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara (South), Karkardooma on 12/01/2009 asking for certain information. Since no reply
was received within the mandated time of 30 days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to
the Commission.

The Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 30/03/2009 asking him to supply the
information by 25/04/2009 and sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within
the mandated time. The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Shahdara Zone has informed the
Commission, that the information has been sent to the complainant on 22/04/2009. He also stated
that, the delay is due to lethargic dealing in this matter.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

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. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal
provisions of Section 20 (1) and Section 2 (2).

He will present himself with the written expalnation showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) on 22 June, 2009 at 05:00 pm. He will also
submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
May 08, 2009.

For any further communication with the Commission please mention the decision No. given at the top.