CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000229/12042
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000229
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Murli Dhar Tiwari
116, Shiv Shankar Purana Kapda Market,
Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi – 110006
Respondent : Mr.B. L. Kaushik
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
General Branch, Rohini Zone,
Rohini, Sector-5, New Delhi- 110085
RTI application filed on : 22/08/2010
PIO replied : 24/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 31/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 20/01/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. How much tehbazari fee is pending from 31 Rent of tehbazaries deposited at CSB. No such
March 2010 to 31 March 2011. Provide ward records is maintained as how much rent is pending.
wise details.
First Appeal:
Incomplete misleading information was provided by the PIO. Specific information be provided.
Order of the FAA:
The appellant is aggrieved because complete information was not provided. The PIO is directed to
provide specific replies to the Appellant for the questions raised in the RTI application within three
week.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO’s claim that rents are paid to CSB and no such record of dues are maintained is false because the
department maintains Demand and Collection register for dues and collections. Department issues
notice on the basis of Demand and Collection register. Hence PIO’s claim that records are not
maintained is false. Complete information was not provided even when FAA ordered to provide
specific information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Murli Dhar Tiwari;
Respondent: Mr.B. L. Kaushik, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner;
The Appellant had sought on 22/08/2010 the fee that was balance for Tehbazari to which a
completely irrelevant reply was given by the CPIO. The FAA directed the PIO to provide the
information within three weeks. However, the information has been sent to the Appellant only on
22/02/2011. The Appellant admits that he has received the information satisfactory.
The states that the person responsible for not providing the information was the then PIO Mr. A.
S.Yadav, Assistant Commissioner.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been received by the Appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
then PIO Mr. A. S.Yadav, Assistant Commissioner within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then 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. A. S.Yadav the then PIO & Assistant Commissioner will present himself before the Commission
at the above address on 20 May 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause
why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) and disciplinary action
should not be recommended under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. 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
19 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)
CC:
To,
Mr. A. S.Yadav the then PIO & Assistant Commissioner through Mr.B. L. Kaushik,
Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner;