CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003182/6695Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003182
Appellant : Mr. B.N.Khurana,
FD-38,Tagore Garden
New Delhi - 110027
Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Sharma
Junior Engineer & Deemed PIO
MCD, South Zone,
O/o of the EE-I, Green Park
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 04/09/2009 (transferred on date 07/09/2009)
PIO replied : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 22/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 10/12/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 17/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 05/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 04/02/2010
Information sought:
1. Please give the total number of reliance cellular Towers in west zone MCD, as on
31/08/2009
2. Whether permission is given for the installation by department or they are working
without valid permission. Please specify the no. of towers working without permission like
one at FD-38 Tagore Garden.
3. Whether all records/files of permission are with department or not specify the no. of
records/files missing like one at FD-38 Tagore Garden.
4. Whether any action taken by department, if the installed tower is illegal. If no, then why?
5. Whether department fix the responsibility of dereliction of duty to officials if installed
tower is illegal. If so give details.
PIO's reply:
No reply
Grounds for First Appeal:
PIO not supply the information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
To provide the information within 7 days.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
PIO not supply the information
Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts
that emerged during the Hearing on 04 February 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. S.K. Khurana representing Mr. B.N.Khurana;
Respondent: Mr. V.R. Bansal, Public Information Officer & SE-I;
The PIO has brought the information which is being given to the appellant before the
Commission. The PIO was asked to identify the person responsible for the delay. The PIO
states that the RTI application was forwarded to the JE Mr. Rajesh Sharma through EE(B-I)
on 17/09/2009. The JE Mr. Rajesh Sharma provided the reply only on 03/02/2010. The order
of the FAA was to provide the information within 7 days. This order was not implemented
and the Assistant Engineer Mr. Kaptan kept the order with him from 21/12/2009.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the Appellant in the present of the Commission.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the deemed PIOs JE Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Assistant Engineer Mr. Kaptan within
30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A
showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Kaptan will present themselves before the Commission at the
above address on 15 March 2010 at 10.30am alongwith their written submissions showing
cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They
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 that arose during the show cause hearing on 15 March 2010:
“The following persons were present:
Respondent: Deemed PIOs Mr. Rajesh Sharma, JE (West Zone) and Mr. Kaptan Singh,
AE (B) Karol Bagh Zone;
The Respondent sates that the record of all the information is maintained by Office
Incharge of the Building. The RTI application was marked to them but they state that they
were not aware that they are expected to reply to this. They also state that the answer has
been provided by OI(Building) hence they contend that the persons responsible for providing
the delayed information is the OI Building. Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE-I has named Mr.
Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Kaptan Singh as the persons responsible for the delay. The
Respondents claimed that as per record the RTI was first marked to EE(B) on 14/09/2009
from where it was sent to Mr. Neeraj, LDC in OI’s office. They claimed that from where it
was sent to AE(IV), AE(I) who sent it to JE, Mr. Dushyant. It appears that JE, Mr. Dushyant
against sent to AE(I) who sent it to Mr. Rajesh Sharma.
To arrive at actual position the Commission therefore issues a showcause notice to Mr. V. R.
Bansal, PIO & SE-I, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Mr. Kaptan and Mr R K. Joshi, OI (Building). All
these officers will present themselves before the Commission on 12 April 2010 at 04.00PM
to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them for not
supplying the information within time as mandated under RTI Act. If there are other persons
Page 2 of 4
responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant they are directed to
inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with them.
The PIO SE-I and SE-II are also directed to send the updated information with respect to the
query of the appellant to the Appellant before 30 March 2010.”
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing on 12 April 2010:
The following persons were present:
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE-I; Mr. Rajesh Sharma JE(WZ); and Mr R K.
Joshi, OI (Building); Mr. K. K. Sharma, EE(B-II);
The PIO states that the information sought by the Appellant related to PIOs SE-I &
SE-II. The PIO SE-II Mr. K. C. Meena gave information on query-I for the entire zone on
14/12/2009 after the order of the FAA. According to the PIO SE-I Mr. VR Bansal all the
queries required that information should have been provided by both the PIOs. Mr. K. C.
Meena, SE-II has sought the assistance of Mr. K. K. Sharma, EE(B-II) to provide the
information to the Appellant.
The Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. K. K. Sharma, EE(B-II) to showcause why
penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him for delay in providing the
information. Mr. K. K. Sharma will appear before the Commission on 20 May 2010 at
04.30PM. 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.
As far as SE-I is concerned it appears that the information had been sought from Mr. Rajesh
Sharma who had received the RTI application on 17/09/2009 and the information was finally
supplied only on 03/02/2010. The deemed PIO Mr. Rajesh Sharma was asked to give his
reasons for the delay. He states that he received the photocopy of the RTI application but did
not realize that he was expected to provide the information since the information had been
sought for the entire zone. The Commission asked Mr. Rajesh Sharma if he had sought
clarification about this from any officer. Mr. Rajesh Sharma claims that he did not know that
he is responsible for providing the information. He seems to imply that he felt the RTI
Application had been sent to him without any purpose. The Commission has not been given
any reasonable cause for the delay in providing the information by Mr. Rajesh Sharma. In
view of this the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of Penalty under Section 20(1) of
the RTI Act on Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Junior Engineer and Deemed PIO. Since the delay has
been over 100 days the Commission imposes a maximum penalty of Rs.25000/- on Mr.
Rajesh Sharma.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Junior Engineer and Deemed
PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the
Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Rajesh Sharma for Rs. 25000/ which is the
maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount
of Rs.25000/- from the salary of Mr. Rajesh Sharma and remit the same by a demand draft or
a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi
and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of
the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi –
Page 3 of 4
110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from
the salary of Mr. Rajesh Sharma and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from May
2010. The total amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2010.
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
12 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SR)
CC:
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. K. K. Sharma,
The then EE(B-II) & Deemed PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
Page 4 of 4