CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00455/SG/0342
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00455/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. R.L. Kain
66 – B, Poket I, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi – 1100095
Respondent 1 : Shri. Z.U. Siddiqui,
The Deputy Commissioner (S.P. Zone) &
Public Information Officer under RTI
Act 2005
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
S. P. Zone, Idgah Road,
New Delhi – 110006
RTI filed on : 15/10/2007 ID no. 1113
PIO replied : 15/12/2007
First appeal filed on : 10/12/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 14/12/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 11/02/2008
The appellant filed 11 queries seeking to know about the naming and the signage of a
particular road. He alleged that the Link road between Arya Samaj Road and Pachkuian
Road had been named Dr. Ambedkar Road in 1966 and subsequently named Babu Jagjeevan
Ram Road in 1996. Most of the queries are allegations. A reply to some of the queries was
given by the PIO and the appellant filed a first appeal. The First Appellate authority held that
most of queries did not qualify as information, but on two points the appeal was partly
allowed. The Appellate authority noted, ” However on two points certain specific information
has been asked regarding submission of certain complaints regarding display of signage
boards including action on CIC’s decision dated 22/6/2007. ” The Appellate authority asked
the PIO to furnish the replies to these within 20 days. Since no reply was provided, the
appellant filed a second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Shivdutt, AE, representing Shri. Z.U. Siddiqui
The respondent admits that no information was provided inspite of the orders of the First
appellate authority. He has brought the information before the Commision is able to give no
explanation for the information not being provided to the appellant for nearly one year afte
the order of the First appellate authority.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 10 December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO Mr. Z.U.Siddiqui 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 to give his written submissions
to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him. He will send his
written submissions to the Commission at the above address before 25 December, 2008
showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If the PIO wishes to contend that some other officer / officers are responsible for the delay
since he has sought their assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the
attached format and ask such other officer / officers to be present with their explanations.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
1st December, 2008
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)