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/2007/01483/SG/00073
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01483
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar,
628/3, Shivaji Road,
Near Avantibai Lodhi Chowk ( Pul
Mithai), Delhi-110006
Respondent : Mr. Vijay Singh
Deputy Commissioner (City Zone)
& Public Information Officer under RTI
Act 2005,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru Margi,
Near Delhi Gate, New Delhi -110002
RTI filed on : 18-06-2007
PIO replied : no reply
First appeal filed on : 14-08-2007
First Appellate Authority order : 16-08-2007
Second Appeal filed on : 3-12-2007
Appellant had filed their Application under Right to Information Act, 2005.
That Appeal U/S 19 (2) of the Right to Information Act. 2005. I.D. No. Nil Dated 18-06-
2007. (Appeal No. 301 dated 16-08-2007) Sheri Harish Kumar vs. PIO DC (City Zone).
That give the information about the work of central burs Pilli Kothi to Pull Mithai chowk.
Give the attested photocopy of the document No. EE-II/TC-II/2005-06/04, dt. 19-05-2005.&
EE-II/TC-II/2005-06/502, dt. 13-03-2006. Dindayal Center Prices’ has not been started our
work with respect to their commitment. Pl do the particular describe that how and when will
be done work started.
The Appellant did not receive any reply from the PIO, hence he filed a first appeal. The First
appellate authority Mr. H.B. Sharma Add. Comm. (Gen. and CSD) recognized that
information had not been provided and passed strictures in his order of 16/08/2007. He
directed the PIO to supply the information within 15 days to avoid further complication like
penalty and disciplinary action under Section 19 of RTI Act.
Yet the PIO took no action hence the second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar
Respondent: Mr. Anil Wasan and Mr. KR.P.Kohli Ex. Engr. Woks, representing the
PIO Mr. Vijay Singh
The respondents were asked why the information was not provided in the 30 day period. It
was further pointed out to them that even after the First appellate Authority’s order, the PIO
had not obeyed his senior officer’s orders. There is no explanation for this dereliction of duty.
The appellant informs us that he received the information on 12/02/2008.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has already been provided and therefore the matter before us is of
imposing penalty.
From the evidence before us it appears that the PIO did not provide any reply to the RTI
application of the appellant. Further he refused to follow the orders of the First appellate
authority. The PIO Mr. Vijay Singh appears to have violated the provisions of the RTI act.
It is apparent from the facts before us that Mr. Vijay Singh, PIO has violated the law by not
furnishing the complete information and has disregarded the orders of the First Appellate
Authority,-who is also an officer senior to him in the Public authority.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO, Mr. Vijay Singh is guilty of
not furnishing information within the time mandated under 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 Mr. Vijay Singh’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20
(1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to present himself before 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 7th November, 2008 at 3.00pm alongwith his
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1).
This decision is announced in open chamber.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 October, 2008
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2007/001483/SG/0073
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/001483/