CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001314/8437
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001314
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mahabir Singh
WZ-1664, Jail Road,Nangal Raya,
Subhash Market, Delhi - 10046
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & Superintending Engineer - I
Building Department, West Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027
RTI application filed on : 21/01/2010
PIO replied : 29/01/2010
First appeal filed on : Not Mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 08/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/05/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Certified copies of all the upto date record added in the file regarding the Certified copies of all the noting page
“sealing of commercial activities in residential area” and ” Exemption No.4 to pg No. 11/N. Regarding
commercial activities in the Subhash Market, Nangal Raya , Delhi- 46″ property No. WZ – 1664A, Subhash
Bazaar, Jail Road, Nangal Raya’s
enclosed herewith at pg No. 1 to 5
2. Information on whether the Building Department, WZ, MCD has ever EE(B) has not received any file
been received assessment file in respect of property No. WZ – 1664A related to any property tax file related
from 1st January 2006 till date. If yes, then the name of the department and to the above mentioned property.
date of receiving and date of sending back to the office is requested.
3. Time schedule of the office of all public information officer exist in the Does not pertain to EE(B) office.
jurisdiction of WZ, MCD for applying RTI application and depositing fee
in the case/or/and by way of IPO/DD/BC etc. by the hand for the same.
4. The certified copies of all documents/entire proceedings/action taken Certified copies of the same has been
report prepared and sent by the Building Department of WZ, MCD on enclosed in the reply to S No. 1pg to
hand written observation of the monitoring Committee dated 01/12/2009 pg5
on noting sheet No.9/N sent to the Monitoring Committee also inform
date of sent for the same.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not Mentioned
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO has been asked to send the complete information and enclosures, as sought by the appellant and discussed during
the hearing within a week’s time.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Reply received on 25/02/2010 was not satisfactory. Even after the order to provide information had been passed on
8/04/2010, there was non- compliance of orders. Even after the filing of the complaint and the order being passed on
29/04/2010, to comply and provide the report within three days, there has been no response so far.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Mahabir Singh;
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer – I;
The appellant shows that since the order of the FAA was not implemented he again represented to the FAA.
The FAA on 29/04/2010 again directed SE-I to comply with the order of 08/04/2010 within 03 days. It is
evident that no additional information was provided to the appellant after the order of the FAA on
08/04/2010. The PIO states that he had sought the assistance of Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) for providing
the information. The PIO has given reminders on 30/04/2010 and 01/06/2010 but Mr. Jagdish Kumar has not
provided any information. The PIO has understood the deficiencies in the information and is now directed to
personally ensure that the entire information is provided to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. V.R. Bansal is directed personally ensure that the entire information is
provided to the appellant before 30 July 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed
PIO Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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 give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not
be levied on him.
Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
04 August 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith 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 the PIO
is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
07 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
CC:
To,
Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) through Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE-I
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3