CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002010/9212
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002010
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Bodh Raj Bhasin
42, Pusa Road,
New Delhi - 110005.
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Superintending Engineer
Nigam Bhawan, DB Gupta Road,
Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005.
RTI application filed on : 04/03/2010
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First appeal filed on : 28/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : -------------
Second Appeal received on : 15/07/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding –
• Why did MCD. not booked the unauthorized Basement in spite of so many written complaints
• Under which Section/clause of MCD act the above said unauthorized basement is exempted from
booking
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Non-supply of information by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed the PIO to furnish complete information within 2 weeks.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-supply of information by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Bodh Raj Bhasin;
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Chandra, Public Information Officer & SE;
The PIO claims that he has sent the information to the appellant on 10/06/2010 but has not
produced any proof of having dispatched this by a speed post receipt. The Commission after discussion
with the appellant reframes his queries as under:
1- The appellant has complained about an unauthorized basement at the rear side of 42-Pusa Road. If
this has been booked or any action has been taken on this, photocopies evidencing this would be
provided to the appellant.
In case no action has been taken this should be stated.
The PIO admits that he has been the PIO since March 2010 when the RTI was filed.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the appellant
before 10 September 2010.
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). 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 October 2010 at 11.30am
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.
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
03 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)