CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000359/11960
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000359
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Deepak Yadav
287/23, Onkar Nagar,
TRI Nagar, Delhi 110035
Respondent: (1): Mr. Tejanand
Deemed PIO & ZRO
Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD
O/o the Zonal Revenue Officer
(Jal) NW-III, Kanhiya Nagar,
Delhi
Respondent (2): Mr. S. K. Sharma
PIO & Dy. Director,
Vigilance Department,
Delhi Jal Board,
Varunalaya Phase-II,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 16/08/2010
PIO replied : 07/12/2010 after FAA’s order
First appeal filed on : 01/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 25/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 03/02/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO after FAA’s order
1. Action on the complaint by Vigilance Department This is related to Vigilance Department.
dated 30/07/2010. Provide photocopies or pen drive or
in CD.
2. Copies of reports submitted by Mr. Om Prakash, Yes, photocopy enclosed.
whose job is to check illegal water connections.
Number of illegal connection identified by Mr. Om
Prakash.
3. Why corrupt officer Mr. Om Prakash is still in the No complaint received against him except
same department. How many complaints received by your complaint.
the Department against him and action taken on the
complaints.
4. If my complaints was referred for inquiry to ———–
Vigilance? If not provide reasons.
5. Details of properties owned by Mr. Om Prakash. He has 25gaj house at shakoorpur, JJ Colony
Provided details of property details he has submitted which he has purchased before 10-12 years
before joining the department and properties has after given by him father. Before this he was living
joint the department. Kindly conduct an inquiry at Mundala, Sonipat, Haryana having
Page 1 of 3
against him. ancestral property.
6. If he goes to deliver water bills in the houses where he Departmental actions are being taken against
finds illegal connections. illegal connection hence no bills are sent.
7. Can Mr. Om Prakash change residential meters to No, only information ca be given. Department
commercial? Provide copies of such rules/orders. inquiries are conducted as per rules.
8. Provide copies or bills, addres and name of owners List enclosed.
whose connections have been changed from
Residential to Commercial by Mr. Om Prakash.
9. Provide Pan Card number of Mr. Om Prakash he uses He has 05 children two children are studying
for income tax. How many children he has and name in government school and other children are
of school in which they are studying. married.
10 Kindly do a vigilance inquiry against Mr. Om Praksh He was never found drunk during office
. for going to check meters in night when he is totally hours.
drunk.
11 Which vehicle Mr. Om Praksh is using since when. He has no vehicle.
. Provide number of the vehicle.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No Information provided by the PIO even after lapse of mandated period under RTI Act. .
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The above case was taken up for hearing on 24.11.2010. The Appellant was present. From Department
side, Sh. Tej Anand, Z.R.O. (NW)-III, APIO was present. The appellant has been heard. The PlO shall
provide a copy of the reply given by him to the appellant within two days. In addition, it will be ensured
that the details of unauthorized, commercial connections that are in the area be provided to the appellant.
The details as available on record in the DJB about the official may also be provided by 10.12.2010.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Deepak Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. Harish Sharma, Head Clerk on behalf of Mr. Tejanand, Deemed PIO & ZRO; Mr. S.
K. Sharma, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance);
The PIO Vigilance Mr. S. K. Sharma is directed to provide the information on query-1 & 4 to the
Appellant.
The RTI application had been filed on 16/08/2010 and the information should have been provided to the
appellant before 16/09/2010. Instead the information has been provided to the Appellant on 07/12/2010.
The Respondents informed that the person responsible for providing the information late is Mr. Tejanand,
ZRO.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. S. K. Sharma is directed to provide the information to the Appellant
with respect to query 1 & 4 before 30 April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Tejanand, ZRO within 30 days as required by the law.
Page 2 of 3
From the facts before the Commission it appears 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer,
which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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. Tejanand, ZRO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 13 May 2011 at
02.30pm 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
11 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RLM)
Page 3 of 3