CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai Market, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000619/4212Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000619
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Appellant : Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal
1, Hari Nagar, Ashram,
Near Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi 110014
Respondent : Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager and deemed PIO
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.
Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 19/12/2008
PIO replied : 09/01/2009
First appeal filed on : 17/01/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 19/02/2009
Second Appeal received on : 27/03/2009
Background
:
The Appellant had sought following information:
1. Whether it is a fact that Prior to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara (Amendment) Act issued vide
Delhi Gazettee notification dated 15th September, 2008, the election of the Executive
Board of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee were due to be held every
year under Section 16 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971?
2. Whether it is true that the after Gurdwara Elections held in January, 2007, the Elections
of the Executive Board were held on 9th February, 2007 and the next elections of the
Executive Board was due on or before 9th February, 2008?
3. Reasons for non-holding of elections of the Executive Board of DSGMC till date may be
intimated?
4. Whether it is true that non-holding of elections of the Executive Board in February, 2008
was a clear violation of the provisions of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971?
5. Whether court cases have been filed in the Hon’ble Courts in Delhi to hold such
elections? If yes, details of such cases filed w.e.f. 9/2/2008 till date be intimated in the
format:
Title of Case Name of Name of Advocate- Advocate- Present
Court advocates wise fee wise fee yet status of the
contesting paid by the to be paid by case
on behalf of DSGMC DSGMC
DSGMC
Page no. 1 of 4
Reply of PIO:
“In this connection it is stated that the information asked for therein being Sub-Judice
can’t be supplied as the Suit No. 613/08 on the subject is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi for which next date of hearing has been fixed on 16/01/2009.”
Grounds for First Appeal:
“The reply of the PIO dated 9/1/2009 is completely vague, irrelevant & misleadin
because the information required in our RTI application is not to such extent that it could not be
supplied as the matter being sub-judice.”
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
“After careful consideration of the contents of the appeal application and the order of the
PIO, I am of the considered opinion that the order PIO is not vague, irrelevant and misleading.
When a case is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it is not prudent to provide any
information except before the court. Accordingly, I concur with the order of the PIO and the
appeal application is disposed of accordingly. ”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
“The PIO (Appeal) being the Respondent No. 1 also failed to furnish complete
information within the mandatory period of 30 days which expired on 16/02/2009. Only
irrelevant & misleading reply was given by him vide his Appeal Order dated 19/02/2009.”
Commission’s order dated 22 July 2009:
The Commission decided that the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee was a public
authority under the RTI Act. The Commission observed that part of the information had been
given to the Complainant, the PIO was directed to ensure that the complete information is given
to the Complainant. The Respondent stated that he wanted 30 days to provide the information in
this matter. The Commission did not accept this contention since the RTI Act expects the
information to be provided within 30 days from the filling of the RTI Application. The
Complaint was allowed. The information was directed to be provided to the Complainant before
5 August 2009.
Brief Facts leading to the show cause hearing:
The Commission received a letter dated 11/08/2009 from the Complainant stating that no
information had been provided to the PIO and he was asked to present himself on 04/09/2009
and show cause why penalty under Section 20 (1) should not be levied on him, for failure to
provide the information.
Relevant facts recorded during hearing on 4 September 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Inder Mohan Singh
Respondent: N.S. Bandhan, PIO
It has been submitted that no information has been received till date. The PIO has brought
written submissions wherein he has stated the information sought by the Appellant is with Mr.
Ram Singh, General Manager of DSGMC. He has sought assistance from Mr. Ram Singh under
Section 5(4) vide letter dated 25/07/2009 and reminders have been sent on 12/08/2009 and
26/08/2009. However he has not received any response to his letters from the GM. It appears that
the PIO was not responsible for the non-compliance of the Commission’s order. The show cause
proceedings against him are hereby dropped. It is decided that a show cause notice will be sent to
the GM of the Committee.
Page no. 2 of 4
Relevant facts recorded during hearing on 22 September 2009:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal
Respondent: Shamsher Singh on behalf of Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager;
Mr. Shamsher Singh states that he has come on behalf of the General Manager Mr. Ram Singh.
The Appellant contests this submission made by Mr. Shamsher Singh stating that he does not
have a letter of authority. A show cause hearing will be held on 16/10/2009 at 2 pm. If Mr. Ram
Singh does not appear before the Commission, the Commission will impose penalty and consider
issuing a summons to Mr. Ram Singh to present himself before the Commission with the
information. The Appellant state that he has not received any information till date.”
Facts leading to Showcause:
The commission had passed an order of 22/07/2009 directing the PIO of DSGMC to provide the
information to the Appellant before 05/08/2009. It was brought to the notice of the commission
that the information sought was held by Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager in all three matters i.e.
Decision nos. CIC/SG/A/2009/00226/4219; CIC/SG/A/2009/00619/4212;
CIC/SG/A/2009/00622/4216. The PIO had informed the Commission that he had sought
assistance form Mr. Ram Singh under Section (4) vide his letter dated 25/07/2009 & 28/07/2009.
The PIO had again sent reminder to Mr. Ram Singh on 18/08/2009 and 26/08/2009 for all three
matters. Yet no information was provided to the appellant. The Commission directed the deemed
PIO Mr. Ram Singh to appear before the Commission on 22/09/2009 to showcause why penalty
under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on him. Since he came very late the matter was fixed
again for hearing on 27/11/2009 at 4.30pm.
Relevant facts recorded during hearing on 27 November 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal
Respondent: Shamsher Singh on behalf of Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager;
The Respondent has sent a letter to the Commission in which he claims he has given the
information on 15/10/2009. In which it is stated that, “in regard to payment of fees paid to
advocates the same can’t be revealed being third party confidential information.”
The Appellant has informed the Commission that information sought under para-5 was
not provided and the plea that, “in regard to payment of fee paid to advocate, the same can’t be
revealed being third party information.” The PIO had not raised any ground for refusing
information during the hearing of the matter. It is clear that the deemed PIO has made up his
mind to defy the law. It is significant that he has given no justification under the Act showing
how this information could be exempt under Section 8(1). Section 11 of the RTI act which refers
to information provided by or relating to a third party. Is merely a procedure provision which
gives a third party an opportunity of hearing. Besides fees paid by a public authority to any one
cannot claim any exemption under any of the sections of Section 8(1). It is extremely regrettable
that the deemed PIO Mr Ram Singh, General manager has chosen to defy the Commission’s
orders in such a brazen manner and the Commission condemns such defiance of its statutory
order given during a process of law. The information was supposed to be give as per
Commission’s order to the Appellant by 05/08/2009, it is still not been provided to the
Appellant. Thus there is already of over 100 days.
The Commission sees this as a fit for levy of penalty on Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager for
complete defiance of the law and citizens fundamental rights under the RTI Act. He has
persistently refused to obey the directions of the information Commission and even today he has
not felt it necessary to come and present any view point before the Commission. The
Page no. 3 of 4
Commission penalizes Mr Ram Singh the maximum penalty livable under the RTI Act since the
delay is already over 100 days.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying
penalty on Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager and deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the
information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ram
Singh for Rs.25000/-which is the maximum penalty under the RTI Act.
The President, of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee is directed to recover
the amount of Rs.25000/- from the salary of Mr. Ram Singh and remit the same by a demand
draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New
Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of
the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066.
The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ each month from the salary of Mr. Ram
Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January 2010. The total amount of
Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2010.
The Deemed PIO Mr. Ram Singh is again directed to provide the information to the
Appellant before 10 December 2009 failing which action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the
Act would again be initiated against him.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 November 2009
CC: 1- President
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.
Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
Page no. 4 of 4