CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000405/12477
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000405
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari
116′ Shiv Shankar Purana Kapra Market Pool
Kutub Road, Sadar Bajar, Delhi-6
Respondent : Public Information Officer & AC(SP Zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Assistant Commissioner(SPZ)
Sadar Paharganj Zone, Idgah Road,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 20/08/2010
PIO replied : No Reply
First appeal filed on : 03/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 18/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 31/01/2011
Information sought:
Information regarding the ward wise tehbazari fees due till 30 March 2011 for the shop of
any size.
Reply of PIO:
No Reply
First Appeal:
No response from the PIO. Request for information sought in the RTI to be given.
Order of the FAA:
In the hearing Appellant and PIO/AC/SPZ were present. No reply was issued to the
Appellant. Therefore the PIO/AC/SPZ is directed to provide the information to the Appellant
within 10 working days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information initially. He had also defined the order of the First
Appellate Authority(FAA).
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no
information has been provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/AC is directed to provide the information as directed by the First
Appellate Authority to the appellant before 10 June 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/AC(SPZ) 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.
PIO/AC(SPZ) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
17 June 2011 at 10.30am 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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)