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/2008/00424//SG/0329
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00424/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. K.M. Sharma,
3/16, Model Town Part-I,
Delhi- 110009.
Respondent 1 : Shri Azimul Haq,
Deputy Commissioner, & PIO
Civil Line Zones, MCD
Delhi.
Respondent 2 : Additional Commissioner (Revenue),
First Appellate Authority under RTI Act
2005
O/o The Addl. Commissioner,
Room No.96, Town Hall,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006,
RTI filed on : 30/08/2007
PIO replied : 27/09/2007
First appeal filed on : 28/10/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 22/11/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 21/02/2008
Information Sought and Reply, if any:
The appellant had sought information from the PIO on the following questions and the PIO
had replied accordingly as given in the Table below:
No. Information sought PIO's Reply 1 What are the names of the MCD officers who are Out of the purview of the RTI Act.
responsible in allowing the violation of the rules
and misuse of Govt. Land for commercial
activities in B-3 blocks?
2 Why these nuisances have not been stopped even It is not correct to say that no
out of the Court orders? efforts have been made.
3 What actions have been initiated by the MCD Out of the purview of the RTI Act.
against the corrupt officials? Provide the
photocopies of such documents.
4 When the area shall be made free from such -do-
encroachment?
5 Does the MCD know that there is massive General Branch/CLZ removes the
encroachment? encroachments from time to time
And if yes, since when? from roads and footpaths.
6 Has the MCD followed the directions of the Yes the MCD has lodged 6 FIR's
Court to monitor the encroachment acts of the in Model Town 1 & 2 besides 42
motor mechanics? If yes, how and serve the prosecution against unauthorized
copies of the action taken. work shops.
7 How many such illegal buildings have been No specific information.
sealed /demolished by the MCD on both sides of
the Princess Road in Model Town 1 and Tagore
Park?
8 Was the sealing full-proof? MCD has already launched
prosecution against defaulters and
lodged FIR’s.
9 What action has been taken against the illegal Out of the purview of the RTI Act.
Durga Temple & other unauthorized buildings in
the area?
10 How these unauthorized buildings came up in the Out of the purview of the RTI Act.
broad day light?
11 Why the 4 shops in property No. 298 on Princess -do-
Road which were demolished by the MCD were
allowed to be reconstructed? What actions the
MCD plans to take against such shops/owners
and why no speedy action has not been taken yet?
12 What is the status of the property No. B. 3/17 -do-
Model Town 1 and how the 3 shops are allowed
in the said area?
13 What action the MCD has taken against the -do-
residents in B 3 Block who carry on business of
sale/ purchase of cars?
14 What is status of the unauthorized market along -do-
with the Princess Road and can your office
explain with documentary evidence as to why
these are allowed to exist when already there has
been demolition orders by the MCD? When this
unauthorized market shall be demolished and the
original park be restored?
The appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the PIO, so he filed an appeal before
the First Appellate Authority.
The First Appellate Authority’s Order:
The FAA in its order stated that, “from the perusal of the record it is seen that the PIO has not
written his designation in the response submitted by him to the appellant on 27/09/2007.
Further the PIO has also not mentioned the name, designation and address of the 1st Appellate
Authority in this case. Accordingly, the PIO i.e. DC, Civil Lines Zones is advised to be more
attentive towards these routine matters. From the perusal of the records it is also seen that
proper replies/categorical replies to Q. No. 2,8,9,12,13 & 14 have not been furnished by the
PIO so he is directed to furnish the requisite categorical reply to these points within 15 days
positively. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.” However, the appellant did not get the
relevant information even after the FAA’s order, hence, he has filed the second appeal.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be provided to the appellant by 20 December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It appears that the PIO has also not obeyed the orders of the First Appellate Authority,
thereby willfully disobeying the requirements of the law and also defying the orders of
his senior officer.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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 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 30 December, 2008 at 3.30pm alongwith his
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He shall also produce evidence of having furnished the information to
appellant. The deemed PIO EE (B) from whom the PIO had sought the information will also
be directed to present himself before the Commission and show cause why penalty should not
be levied on him as per the provisions of Section 20 (1).
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 November, 2008