CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00192/2398
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00192
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Vaidh
7/76B, Bhim Gali,
Vishwas Nagar Shahdara
Delhi-110032.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Shahdara South Zone)
Karkadooma, Shahdara,
New Delhi.
RTI Application filed on : 13/9/07 Id No. 864
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First appeal filed on : 06/12/2007
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal filed on : Not mentioned
Information Sought:
The Appellant had asked following information from Delhi Pradesh Safai
Majdoor Union (Regd).
1. On the reference of w/o Umesh Kumar, Ward No. 76 dated 09.10.02. Please
give all the details about how much time it will take for being permanent and
what action cleanness superintendent had taken.
2. Why he is not permanent in fact his colleagues are permanent.
3. From back dated he is understood that he is a permanent employee.
4. Is arrear pay will be as per permanent.
5. His one of the colleague who is in panel of 572 post had been paid up back
date arrear. Is in panel of 572 post, all employee has been paid?
PIO’s Reply:
Not mentioned
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Vaidh
Respondent : Mr. Shiv Singh on behalf of Shailendra Kumar Sharma PIO
The appellant has not been given any information at all..
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant will be given the information by Mr. Shiv Singh before 10 April 2009.
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 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. 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 April, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24th March 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)