CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002954/6318Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002954
Appellant : Mr. Madanlal
C-19, Harinagar Part-II,
Near Sai Baba Mandir,
Badarpur,
New Delhi-110044
Respondent : Mr. S.K. Singh,
Now Dy. Commissioner (VAT)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Dept. of Trade and Taxes
ITO, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 10/07/2009
PIO replied : 16/07/2009
First Appeal filed on : 17/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 14/09/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 19/112009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 07/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 07/01/2010
Information sought:
Appellant had objection on following points out of 5:
4. Area of land of Khasra no. 162, 163, 164, 165 at Sultanpur village awarded to Metro. Provide
Sizra and Drawing of above mentioned Khasra no.
5. Whether the land of Khasra no. 162, 163, 164, 165 at Sultanpur Village is agriculture land
or not. If it is agriculture land then owner of Girdhawari during year 1995 to 2002, if private then, name
of department which had been notified and date of notification.
PIO's Reply:
Reply given by the Respondent no. 1.
4. Khasra No. 164 (24.30 sqm and Khasra no.(800sqm has to be awarded. Deposit appropriate
amount for copy of Drawing. .
5. It is concerned Tahsil Hauzkhas
In respect of Q.No. 2 & 5, Application was transferred vide letter dated 20/07/2009 to the Respondent no.
2 and 3 by the Respondent no. 1.
Grounds for First Appeal:
More amounts (Rs. 50/) had been charged for photocopy of per page. Information was not provided in
respect of point no. 5.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Appellant informed that he had been furnished requisite reply but he was not satisfied with the reply in
respect of point No. 4 & 5. The representative of PIO informed that the application was forwarded to the
SDM (HK) and PWD for furnishing the information in respect of point no. 4 & 5.
In respect of point no.4, the Appellant contended that he had been charged Rs. 50/-for providing the sizra
plan and drawing of Khasra No. 164 min & 165 min. He had been made available copy of the sizra plan
Page no. 1 of 3
on A-size paper.FAA stated that Appellant should be given full size map of these Khasra numbers which
should be made available to him within a week. No extra fee should be charged for this information.
The point No. 5 pertains to Sub-Division (Hauz Khas) and since SDM(HK) had been declared as SPIO,
the requisite information may be sought from the concerned office directly. SDM(HK) was directed to
furnish the reply on point no. 5 within seven days to the Appellant under intimation to the office.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information was not provided in respect of point no. 5.
Relevant Facts
that emerged during the Hearing on 07 January 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Madanlal;
Respondent: Mr. Rupesh Thakur, State Public Information Officer & SDM;
Mr. D.V.S. Kansal, Assistant Public Information Officer & EE
The Appellant states that he was asked to pay Rs.50/- as additional fee and given an unreadable
drawing in A-4 size. After filling the second appeal with the Commission he was called and given a
readable drawing of a larger size on 29/12/2009. It is evident that Rs.50/- was charged vide receipt no.
6669 on 06/08/2009. He was asked to pay this additional fee by a letter of 16/07/2009 issued by Mr.
S.K.Singh, Land and Acquisition Collector (ADM-South). The Appellant is satisfied with the information
which he has now received.”
Decision dated 07 January 2010:
The appeal was allowed. The Commission observed that the information had been provided.
As the issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
PIO Mr. S.K.Singh, Land and Acquisition Collector (ADM-South) within 30 days as required by the law,
the Commission issued a show cause notice to Mr. SK Singh. He was directed to present himself before
the Commission on 04 February 2010 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing held on 04/02/2010:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. S.K. Singh, the then PIO & Land and Acquisition Collector (ADM-South);
Mr. S.K. Singh states that the copy of the full plan was received by the Appellant on 10/12/2009.
The First Appellate Authority’s order dated 14/09/2009 directed the PIO to provide the full information to
the Appellant within 7 days. Mr. Singh says that he had to procure the plan from DMRC since a full size
plan was not available on the file. The FAA had ordered on 15/09/2009 that the information, – the full size
plan, – must be provided within a week. The FAA could not been oblivious to the time frame required to
supply this information. By his order the information should have been provided by 21/09/2009 instead of
which it has been provided on 10/12/2009 i.e. after a delay of 80 days. The Commission asked Mr. Singh
to give reasons for the delay Mr. Singh states, “Since the information was not available on the file it had
to be obtained form the DMRC. Therefore in procuring the requisite copies it took some time. At the time
of responding to the application of the applicant the A-4 size drawing which was available on the file was
provided to him.”
The A-4 size drawing which Mr. Singh was referring to was completly unreadable. The FAA has
infact recorded, “If he is charged Rs.50/- he should be given full size map of these Khasra numbers which
should be available within a weeks time.” Thus the FAA was fully aware and had stated that what was
expected was that full size map would be given. Also the Commission cannot accept the argument that
obtaining the map from DMRC should take a few months time. In view of this the Commission sees this
as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act on Mr. Singh. The Commission imposes a
penalty on Mr. S.K.Singh of Rs.250/- per day delay X 80 days = Rs.20000/-.
Page no. 2 of 3
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for
levying penalty on Mr. S.K. Singh, Dy. Commissioner (VAT) Since the delay in providing the correct
information has been 80 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. S.K. Singh for
Rs. 20000/-.
The Chief Secretray of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.20000/- from the
salary of Mr. S.K. 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/ per month every
month from the salary of Mr. S.K. Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from March
2010. The total amount of Rs.20000 /- will be remitted by June, 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
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
4 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
CC:
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page no. 3 of 3