CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001812/8529
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001812
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Shri. Jai Prakash
S/o Shri. Hari Ram
137, Bindu Mohalla,
Village Kanganheri,
New Delhi- 110071
Mobile No. 9212652609
Respondent : Public Information Officer
BDO Office Complex,
Old Roshanpura Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi- 110043
RTI application filed on : 25/02/2010
PIO replied : No reply by PIO
First appeal filed on : 07/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 10/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/06/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information in relation to property bearing ward number 96 and
103 and the records pertaining thereto.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No reply was provided by the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO failed to provide complete and satisfactory information within the stipulated
period prescribed under the RTI Act.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the PIO had failed to provide any information even after a lapse
of 3 ½ months. The PIO was directed to explain the lapse and to provide information
within 7 working days under intimation to the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Page 1 of 2
Non compliance of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA has
given a clear order dated 10/06/2010 wherein it has asked the PIO/ SDM (NG) to explain
the lapse of 3 ½ months in providing the information and further directed him to provide
the Appellant with the requisite information within 7 working days under intimation to
the FAA. The Appellant has not been provided with the information requested for despite
the order of the FAA. The Commission therefore directs the PIO/ SDM (NG) to provide
the information requested for by the Appellant.
The appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the information requested by
the Appellant before August 10, 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/ SDM (NG) is guilty of
not furnishing information within the time specified under Section 7(1) 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 mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be
given. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act. A show cause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to 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 August 16, 2010
at 10:30 am along with 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 and for not complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO/SE/SPZ is directed
to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
14 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(ND)
Page 2 of 2