CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000500/12191Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000500
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Nitin Goel
124, NCPA Apartment
12th Floor, B Wing,
Nariman Point, Mumbai- 4
Respondent : Mr. Parshadi Lal
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
Property Tax Department
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg
New Delhi- 110001
RTI application filed on : 20/01/2010
PIO replied : 15/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 23/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 24/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 08/02/2011
Information sought:- 20/01/2010
1. Background papers on the basis of which the NDMC Committee constituted u/s 9 of the NDMC
Act, 1994 to advise upon the Property Tax system, has recommended as follows quae occupancy
factor:
a. As per the original proposals in MCD, an occupancy factor was to be applied for all types
of properties (residential or non-residential) if these premises were rented. Subsequently,
the guidance were revised and the occupancy factor of 2 is being applied in case of
Residential Properties only.
The rental values of commercial properties in area under the jurisdiction of NDMC, are high
as compared those prevailing in the rest of Delhi. In case of Khan Market, the rentals can even
go beyond Rs 500 a square ft. per month. The rentals in residential areas are also fairly high.
Keeping this in view, the Committee recommends that an occupancy factor be applied on both
types of properties i.e. residential as well as non-residential, if these are not self occupied
A trend has been noticed in the NDMC area wherein properties are being acquired in the
names of companies. These properties are invariably being used for residence of the Directors,
employees or relatives of such Director/employees. The Committee recommends that such
properties should not be treated as self occupied properties for the applicability of the
occupancy factor.
2. Copies of the file notes qua the aforesaid recommendation.
3. Copy of the Action taken by the NDMC quae the aforesaid recommendation.
Page 1 of 4
PIO response 1: 15/02/2010
Report of the committee available on NDMC website
1st Appeal to PIO: 24/02/2010
Information given was not what was requested.
PIO response 2: 30/03/2010
Response gives objectives of the Committee, Recommendation of modified form of Unit Area method.
Acceptance of recommendations in principle by the Council. Details of who all letters were sent to elicit
opinion. Introduction of Unit Area Method via notification.
2nd Appeal to PIO: 05/04/2010
Information given was not what was requested.
Grounds for the First Appeal: 23/06/2010
Information given was not what was requested.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): 24/09/2010
PIO instructed to give comprehensive reply of points raised by the applicant. Appeal is disposed.
PIO response to FAA Order: 11/11/2010
Information was given before via “PIO Response 2”. Approval or recommendations was published in
Delhi Gazette. Copy of report of the sub-committee shall be provided after payment.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: 08/02/2011
Information not received.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing the on 29 April 2011:
Appellant: Mr. Nitin Goel on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Parshadi Lal, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director; Mr. J. P. Garg, APIO;
“The Appellant had sought information about the background papers and file notings based on
which NDMC committee had made recommendation regarding occupancy factor. The PIO did not offer to
give this information at all but kept offering the Gazette Notification and the subcommittee’s
recommendation. The PIO has no explanation for this strange behavior.”
Commission’s Decision dated 29 April 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The commission directs the PIO to send an attested photocopy of the entire file
including noting to the Appellant before 10 May 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. 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 31 May 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.”
Page 2 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing the on 31 May 2011:
Respondent: Mr. Parshadi Lal, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director; Mr. J. P. Garg, APIO & SO;
The PIO states that he has now provided the complete information to the Appellant on 06/05/2011
after the order of the Commission by speed post. The Commission asked the PIO Mr. Parshadi Lal why he
had not provided the complete information to the Appellant initially. The Commission also pointed out to
the PIO that even after the order of the FAA he had failed to supply the information to the Appellant. The
PIO Mr. Parshadi Lal has brought no written submissions and only state that he missed sending the
information and is sorry about it.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not
furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received
or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five
thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information.
2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 – 30
days.
3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section
(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty
each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable
cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the
law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was
justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
The RTI application had been filed on 20/01/2010 and the complete information sought by the Appellant
should have been provided before 20/02/2010. The FAA had also ordered on 24/09/2010 that the
complete comprehensive information should be provided. Yet this order was also not complied with. The
PIO has given no reasonable cause for not providing the information. Hence the Commission sees this as a
Page 3 of 4
fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Complete information appears
to have been provided only on 06/05/2011. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100
days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on
Mr. Parshadi Lal, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Parshadi Lal, Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director Since the delay in providing the complete information has been over 100
days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Parshadi Lal `25000/ which is
the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to recover the amount of
`25000/- from the salary of Mr. Parshadi Lal and remit the same by a demand draft or a
Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi
and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy
Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per month every
month from the salary of Mr. Parshadi Lal and remitted by the 10th of every month starting
from July 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of November,
2011.
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
31 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(BK)
CC: To,
1- The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Sandad Marg,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 4 of 4