CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003614/11208Adjunct- I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003614
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar,
628/3 Shivaji Road, Pul Mithai ,
Delhi- 110006.
Respondent : Mr. N. K. Gupta,
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner (Narela Zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Opposite Narela Police Station
Delhi - 110040
RTI application filed on : 14/09/2010
PIO replied : not replied
First appeal filed on : 18/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 22/12/2010
Information Sought
1. The applicant has sought information about the tehbazari open and closed shops, PCO, Rehadi
stall, name of Tehbazari holder, assigned area, shape and rent and the total arrears till 30/03/2011
and copies of allotment letters and the total no. of files lost and in the office.
2. Details about applications for title transfer of Tehbazari and details of the assigned and the
retailer
Reply of the PIO
Not replied
First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO within the stipulated time period of 30 days.
Order of the FAA:
“Present: Appellant was not present. L.I. from the department.
The matter has been examined. Reason for appeal application is reported the delay in sending the
reply. AC/PlO is directed to check the position in this regard and concerned be cautioned to be
careful in future, in case there is actual fault on the part of the concerned. With this direction the
case is closed.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved as no information has been provided by the PIO despite the order of
the FAA.
Decision dated January 31, 2011:
“The appellant has received no information or communication from the PIO. Even
after the order of the First Appellate Authority no information has been sent to the
appellant.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before 20
February 2011.
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 appears 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. 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 16 March 2011 at 11.00am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and
submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders
to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions
under Section 20(2) against him.
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 emerging at the show cause hearing held on March 16, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar;
Respondents: Mr. Attar Singh Chopra, Administrative Officer on behalf of Mr. N. K. Gupta,
PIO & AC, Mr. Manoj Pathak, UDC and Mr. Amit Kumar, LDC.
“The RTI application dated 14/09/2010 was received at the office of PIO & AC on 22/09/2010.
Initially, a reply was sent to the Appellant by UPC on 08/10/2010. However, the Appellant
claimed that he had not received a copy of the same.
On perusal of the reply dated 08/10/2010, information provided on query 2 appears to be
adequate. However, the information provided in relation to query 1 was incomplete inasmuch as
it was stated that though all the records at Narela Zone were available, since the office premises
had been shifted several times, the said records were not located at a particular place and were
required to be sorted. It was further stated that once copies of the allotment letters sought by the
Appellant were sorted, he would be informed.
The Respondents also claimed that they had furnished the same reply to the Appellant by UPC
vide letter dated 02/11/2010 in compliance with the order of the FAA. However, the Commission
noted that the FAA passed an order only on 16/11/2010 and therefore the claim of the
Respondent that the letter dated 02/11/2010 was sent in compliance with the order of the FAA
was preposterous. Moreover, the Appellant claimed that he had not received a copy of the letter
dated 02/11/2010.
The Respondents also admitted that they did not send any information to the Appellant after the
Commission’s order as they believed that vide letters dated 08/10/2010 and 02/11/2010,
complete information had been provided to the Appellant. The Commission was not satisfied
with the submissions of the Respondents and noted that despite a lapse of over 100 days,
complete information has not been provided to the Appellant by the PIO & AC till date.”
Adjunct Decision dated March 16, 2011:
“Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & AC is hereby directed to collect the allotment letters and other
documents (if any) from the concerned office premises sought by the Appellant in query 1 and
provide certified copies of the same to the Appellant before April 15, 2011.
Further, the Commission hereby directs Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & AC to appear before the
Commission on April 18, 2011 at 11:30 am along with his written submissions to show cause
why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. He is directed to
produce before the Commission any relevant document that he may have relied on in his written
submissions. If there are other persons responsible for the not providing the complete
information to the Appellant who have not been included in this show cause notice, Mr. N. K.
Gupta, PIO & AC is directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear before
the Commission on 18/04/2011 along with him.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on April 18, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar;
Respondents: Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & AC, Mr. Attar Singh Chopra, Administrative Officer,
Mr. Sushil Kumar, LDC and Mr. Amit Kumar, LDC.
The Commission noted that further to its order dated 16/03/2011, requisite information in
relation to query 1 was sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 23/03/2011. On perusal of the
same, the Commission noted that two files indicated at Sr. Nos. 107 and 108 of the Final List of
Eligible Squatters of Ward No. 101, Narela are missing.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission hereby directs Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & AC to file a police complaint with
respect to the two missing files (as mentioned above) and provide a copy of the same to the
Appellant and the Commission before May 31, 2011.
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
April 18, 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AM)