CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003480/11048
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003480
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr Rajendra Gupta,
704 G T Road Shahadra ,
Delhi-32.
Respondent : Mr. Yogendra Sharma
Deemed PIO & Executive Engineer (B-I)
Rohini Zone
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Executive Engineer (B-I)
Rohini Zone, Sector-5, Rohini,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2010
PIO replied : 14/07/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 30/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 10/12/2010
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Present situation of plot no. DP 14 and 15 and also After receiving complaint the plots were
the investigation which has been done according to checked and which illegal constructions were
the complaint dated 07/05/2010 investigate under DMC Act.
2. Any Plan passed by the building department for the The plan is with the housing department.
said plots.
3. The construction has been done according to the The plan is passed and anything against it is
plan or more than that, investigated under DMC act.
4. Copy of the diary maintained by field officers under
ministry of urban development and poverty
elevation
First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO was false.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO was ordered to get the photographs of the properties as asked by the appellant and also to furnish relevant
information for the question no. 4 and supply it to the appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved that the photographs have not been provided after the payment of the charges
and also the information even after lapse of 40 days has not been given.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr Rajendra Gupta;
Respondent : Mr. Yogendra Sharma, EE(B-I); Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) & Deemed PIO;
The PIO has provided certain information but has not provided information on query-03. The
Appellant has sought information on whether the building is being made as per the sanctioned building
plan. The PIO has not provided any answer to this query. The Respondent agrees that this information
should be in the construction watch register. The PIO is directed to give a copy of construction watch
register to the Appellant. In case if the construction watch register is not being maintained this should be
stated.
The FAA had directed the PIO to provide the copies of the photographs within two weeks. The Appellant
was asked to deposit Rs.80/- for this which he has done on 29/10/2010. The PIO has however provided
the photographs only on 05/01/2011. Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) admits that the delay in providing the
photographs has caused because of him. He admits that he has no explanation for the delay.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Mr. Yogendra Sharma, EE(B-I) is directed to give the information as directed above
to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. Raj
Bir Kundu, AE(B) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
01 February 2011 at 11.00am 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.
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 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)