CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000167/13376
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000167
Complainant : Mr. Govind Lal Arora
C/o Bhagwati Timbers
Khasra No. 138/3, Gali No.10
Block A-2, West Sant Nagar
Burari, New Delhi-110084
Respondent : Public Information officer
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil Lines)
O/o the Deputy Commissioner (North)
GNCTD, 1, Kripa Narain Marg
New Delhi-110054
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Govind Lal Arora filed a RTI application with the PIO, O/o the Divisional
Commissioner, GNCTD on 27/12/2010 asking for certain information. However on not
having received any further information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed
a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the
Commission issued a notice to the PIO, O/o the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD on
11/03/2011 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further
sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has received a copy of letter dated 23/03/2011 of the
PIO/SDM-III/HQ vide which the Commission’s aforesaid notice has been forwarded to
the PIO/ADM, Revenue Department with a direction to comply with the Commission’s
directions. However, the Commission has till date received no further communication
from the PIO. Subsequently, the Commission received a letter dated 21/04/2011 from the
Complainant stating that information was provided to him vide letter(s) dated
04/03/2011 and 05/04/2011 of the PIO/SDM (Civil Lines). Copies of the said letter(s)
were enclosed. Further, with regard to Query No.3 of the RTI Application where on
perusal of the information provided it has been observed that the PIO/SDM had asked the
Complainant to inspect the file in the respective office, it has been alleged that the sought
file was not shown to the Complainant when he went for the inspection to the PIO’s
office.
In view of the facts on record, the only presumption that can be made is that the
PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per
the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on the part of the PIO to respond to the
Commission’s notice shows that there is no reasonable cause for the refusal of
information.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to facilitate the inspection of
the sought file with regard to Query no.3 of the RTI Application to the Complainant
before 27/07/2011 and send a compliance report to the Commission by 05/08/2011. From
the facts before the Commission, it appears that you have not provided the correct and
complete information within the mandated time and have failed to comply with the
provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the PIO’s part in providing the
information raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide. The
PIO is hereby directed to send his written submissions to the Commission before
05/08/2011 to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be
not recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
11 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)