CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001535/8587Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001535
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Prem Raj
H. No. - 10382, First Floor,
Manak Pura, Mandir Wali Gali,
Karol Bagh
New Delhi-110005
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Karol Bagh Zone
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2010
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : 22/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 10/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 08/06/2010
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding -
• When, where and to which officer did the Appellant’s complaint was received and what action had
been taken regarding the same?
• Name of the of the officers who were supposed to investigate regarding the Appellant’s complaint and
have not done so.
• Certified copies of the investigation done for the Appellant’s complaint.
• When and what action would be taken against the officers who do not do their work and trouble the
public.
• Are these officers culprit for corruption u/s 13(d) of the Anti-Corruption Act and u/s 217 of the Indian
Penal Code for not investigating for the same?
• When would the case against these officers for corruption, etc and other charges for which these
officers are liable be handed over to the Vigilance Deptt.
• When would the investigation for Appellant’s complaint be complete and when would the factory
responsible for polluting be sealed with investigation against the officers responsible for the same?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
No reply provided by the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to provide the information to the Appellant within 2 weeks since the PIO had informed
during the hearing in front of the FAA that no such information lies with the PIO. The appeal was disposed
off.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 19/07/2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Prem Raj
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Chandra, Public Information Officer & Superintending Engineer;
“The appellant states that inspite of the order of the FAA no information was provided to him. The
RTI application has been received at the office of the Dy. Commissioner on 09/03/2010. The PIO claims that
the information has been sent to the appellant on 16/07/2010. The information is in English whereas the
appellant wants it in Hindi. The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant in Hindi. The PIO
states that the RTI application has been given to Mr. B. N. Sharma, JE whose assistance has been sought
under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The FAA’s order issued on 10/05/2010 was with the EE(B) Mr. S. K.
Chauhan but it not clear whether the order of the FAA was given to Mr. Sharma.”
Decision dated 19/07/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to give the information to the appellant before 24 July 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed
PIOs Mr. S. K. Chauhan, EE and Mr. B. N. Sharma, JE within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section
20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. S. K. Chauhan, EE and Mr. B. N. Sharma, JE will present themselves before the Commission at the above
address on 16 August 2010 at 03.00pm alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They 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.”
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing held on 16/08/2010:
Respondent: Mr. S.K. Chauhan, APIO & EE(B), KBZ and Mr. B.N. Sharma, the then JE(B), KBZ
The APIO & EE(B) Mr. S.K. Chauhan submitted that the RTI application dated 09/03/2010 was
received in his office on 16/03/2010 and the same was forwarded to the then JE(B) Mr. B.N. Sharma on
18/03/2010. He also submitted the copy of the movement register and the receipt register, from wherein it is
evident that the then JE(B) Mr. B.N. Sharma had received the RTI application on 18/03/2010. Further, Mr.
Chauhan stated that the FAA’s order dated 10/05/2010 was never received in his office, however the same
was received only in the office of the PIO & SE Mr. Suresh Chandra. In support of this, Mr. Chauhan
submitted the copy of the FAA’s order with the receiving of the PIO’s office dated 14/05/2010 and copies of
the receipt register of his office from 14/05/2010 to 20/05/2010.
The then JE(B) Mr. B.N. Sharma stated that on 08/03/2010 the concerned area was assigned to Mr.
V.K. Singh. Further, Mr. Sharma stated that in every public authority it is a practice to allot a unique ID no. by
the office of the Nodal Officer to every RTI application to differentiate between the RTI application and the
general application/complaint. He further alleged that no ID number had been allotted to the said RTI
application. Mr. Sharma accepted that the said application was received by him on 18/03/2010 but in the
absence of the ID no., he had treated the same as a general application. Furthermore, Mr. Sharma submitted
the FAA’s order dated 10/05/2010, stating that during the hearing before the FAA on 05/05/2010, the PIO &
SE had submitted that there was no record of the said RTI application. A copy of the said RTI application had
also been handed over to the PIO & SE during the hearing before the FAA.
In compliance of the Commission’s order, the information has been provided to the Appellant in Hindi
vide a letter dated 22/07/2010.
Adjunct decision announced on 18/08/2010:
In the light of the above stated facts, the Commission has decided to schedule another showcause
hearing on 28/09/2010 at 03:00pm. The Commission directs the PIO & SE Mr. Suresh Chandra, the APIO &
EE(B) Mr. S.K. Chauhan to appear before the Commission on 28/09/2010 at 03:00pm alongwith their written
submissions to showing cause why penalty should not be levied on them for not providing the information
even after the FAA’s order. The Commission directs the PIO & SE Mr. Suresh Chandra to bring the proof of
having been forwarded the FAA’s order dared 10/05/2010 to the EE(B) and further directs the APIO & EE(B)
Mr. S.K. Chauhan to bring the original receipt register from 14/05/2010 to 14/06/2010.
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
18 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)