CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000045/11473
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000045
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr Mohd. Idris
R/o 1231, Faijganj Gali No. 1,
Bahadur Garh Road,
Delhi-110006
Respondent : PIO & Dy. Commissioner
Sadar Paharganj Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Dy. Commissioner (SP Zone),
Idgah Road, Paharganj,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 21/06/2010
PIO replied : 19/07/2010
First appeal filed on : 02/08/2010
First Appellate Authority order : not ordered
Second Appeal received on : 03/01/2011
Information Sought :
Complaint has been filed on 04/06/10 through D.T.D.C. carrier receipt number Z0913886 against
A.L.O. Mr. Rajeev Garg. The following information is sought :
1. Specify the date and diary number of the above mentioned complaint of this department.
2. Details along with certified copy of the Inquiry conducted or action taken by the concerned
department regarding the above mentioned complaint.
3. Certified copy of the inquiry being held by the department in this matter.
4. In regard to the above mentioned complaint, provide details of the daily work progress and
condition and give certified copies.
PIO’s reply :
The PIO has replied that the complaint of the Appellant has been forwarded to D.C./ S.P. Zone on
11/06/2010 vide diary number 11163 for further necessary action at their end and no investigation has
been carried out by this department. The RTI application is also forwarded to DC (SP Zone) to provide
the information.
Grounds for first appeal:
No information received from PIO.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not ordered
Grounds for second appeal:
No information received so far from the PIO and the FAA has also not ordered.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a
perusal of the papers it appears that DC(SP Zone) did not send any information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs DC (SP Zone) to provide the information regarding
query-1 & 4 in the following format to the Appellant:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
The PIO will provide information regarding query-1 & 4 in the above formation and
also complete information on the queries 2 & 3 to the Appellant before 10 April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears 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 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 18 April 2011 at 11.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this
decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to
the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under
Section 20(2) against them.
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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number). (su)