CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01043/SG/01026
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01043/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Darshan Lal,
181- Mukherji Park,
New Delhi – 110018.
Respondent 1 : Dy. Commissioner (WZ) & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Rajouri Garden, West Zone
New Delhi-110027.
RTI filed on : 29/01/2007 PIO replied : 25/04/2008 First appeal filed on : 08/04/2008 First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned. Second Appeal filed on : 11/06/2008
The details of the required information with the answer as table given under:
S.No Information sought The PIO’s reply
1. How much land has been taken over by you The widening of the road is in
for widening of road from H. No. 183 progress as per the direction of
Mukherji Park to H. No. 166 Mukherji Park Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to
individually and also in the building opposite make the road 45ft wide by
to these Mukherji Park building situated in demolishing on both sides of
Shyam Nagar individually? carriage way as per the various
judgment of the court.
2. An attested copy of the affidavit submitted in An attested copy of the affidavit is
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by E.E. attached.
(Works) in this case is provided.
3. An attested copy of the reply received from Copy of the same is attached.
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in this
reference i.e. order copy be provided.
4. The said original High Court file of this case The Applicant may visit the office
regarding widening of Chand Nagar Court be during any working hours with prior
given to me for inspection and any additional intimation.
documents, after inspection if any, as
demanded by me be provided to me duly
attested.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Not Mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal
Respondent: Mr. Gautam Chand representing PIO
The respondent has not supplied the relevant information on point 1. He is directed to
supply the information of how much land has been taken from each house.
On point 2 the appellant contends that the affidavit supplied is a rejoinder and he wants
a copy of the original affidavit. The respondent is directed to provide the copy of the
original affidavit. If there is no other affidavit, the respondent will state this.
The appellant contends the inspection of files has not been given. The PIO is directed to
give an inspection of the files to the appellant on 15 January 2009 at 11.00am
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information on point 1 and 2 to the appellant before
30 January 2009.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 February, 2009. If the PIO wishes to contend that some
other officer / officers are responsible for the delay since he has sought their assistance under
Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such other officer / officers to be
present with their explanations.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
13th January, 09.
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)