CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003068/6500Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003068
Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Gupta
Editor 704, G.T.Road,
Shahadara, Delhi - 110032
Respondent : Mr. Rahul Verma,
Junior Engineer and Deemed PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Central Zone, O/o EE(B-II),
Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2009
PIO replied : 09/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 08/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 22/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 21/01/2010
The Appellant had sought information regarding unauthorized construction on property no.
1/2572, Ram Nagar, Shahdara North Zone:
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether permission for construction was As per records Building Department
given by the department? Copy of the had not given permission nor any lay
Layout plan of the construction? Give copy out plant was passed by the MCD.
of plan.
2. Whether fee for layout plan was paid? If yes As Sl. 1 above.
give mode of payment and details?
3. If no permission was granted then what Action will be taken as per MCD
action MCD has taken against this Act.
construction?
4. Had MCD booked this construction for As Sl. 3 above.
demolition? If yes then by which date
demolition will be completed?
5. If there is any problem in demolition had As Sl. 3 above.
you sealed the premises?
6. If permission for construction was given As Sl. 3 above.
then have you verified whether the
construction is as per plan/rule? If no what
Page no. 1 of 4
action MCD has taken against it?
7. If permission for construction was given Junior Engineer is Mr. Rahul Verma
then who is the Officer responsible to report no official mobile is given to Mr.
the status of construction? Give name of the Verma.
officer/Engineer with mobile number.
8. Give name of the officers to whom the Assistant Engineer is Mr. Sohan Lal.
above officer/engineer reported regarding
construction.
9. What is the area of the construction? Property relates to Tax Department.
10. What was the present status of the building As Sl. 9 above.
when this complaint was made i.e. how
many rooms/floors were built.
11. Out of the approved are what was the As Sl. 1 above.
permission area for construction?
12. How many floors, rooms, kitchens, As Sl. 1 above.
bathrooms etc were permitted?
13. Whether this construction is on the part of As Sl. 1 above.
the property?
14. Whether any complaint was made against No complaint received in this
this construction give copy of such regard.
complaint and action taken on complaints?
15. Give name and mobile number of the Mr. Sohan Lal (M): 9717788223,
officers involved in the construction? Assistant Engineer and Mr. Rajul
Verma, Junior Engineer.
First Appeal:
No action was taken on complaints nor information was provided.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
False information was provided by the PIO after lapse of 30 days.
Relevant Facts
that emerged during the Hearing on 21 January 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
The RTI application was received by the PIO on 03/08/2009. The PIO did not give
any reply and the reply from the deemed PIO dated 09/10/2009 was sent to the Appellant
only on 29/10/2009 acknowledging that illegal construction had been done and that action
will be taken. The PIO informs that the property has been booked but any actual action like
sealing or demolition will be taken at some point in the future. The PIO states that the
person responsible for the delay of 78 days is Mr. Rahul Verma, Junior Engineer. The RTI
application was given to him on 12/08/2009 and he gave the information on 29/10/2009.”
Page no. 2 of 4
Commission’s Decision dated 21 January 2010:
“The Appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been provided.”
Facts leading to Showcause:
The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information
by the deemed PIO Mr. Rahul Verma, Junior Engineer within 30 days as required by the
law. From the facts before the Commission it appeared that the deemed PIO Mr. Rahul
Verma, Junior Engineer was 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. Hence a showcause notice was issued to him, and he was directed give his
reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him on 23
February 2010 at 11.00am.
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 23 February 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Rahul Verma, Junior Engineer (in EE-Building-II);
Mr. Mr. Rahul Verma states that he had joined MCD on 01/06/2009 and was
allotted the area which is a subject matter of this RTI Application on 08/07/2009. He states
that he did not know about the procedures of the RTI Applications. He states that the
Office Incharge (Building) Mr. Satpal Singh was not cooperating with him. Hence he
could not provide the information. The RTI application has been received by the
Department on 03/08/2009 and Mr. Rahul Verma was given the application on 18/08/2009
by admission he has provided the information on 29/10/2009. The information should have
been provided by 03/09/2009. Thus there was a delay a delay of 56 days in providing the
information from 03/09/2009 to 29/10/2009 when the information was provided.
Mr. Rahul Verma, Deemed PIO has not given any reasonable cause for not supplying the
information. The Commission warns him that incase of any future default the Commission
will recommend very strict disciplinary action against him. The Commission is not
oblivious of the fact that MCD officers are most reluctant in providing the information
when RTI queries seek information about unauthorized construction and encroachment.
The Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI
Act. The Commission penalizes Mr. Rahul Verma Rs.250/- per day for the delay of 56
days i.e. Rs.250/- X 56 days = Rs.14000/-
Decision:
The Commission finds this a fit case for levying of penalty under Section 20(1) of
the RTI Act because no reasonable cause has been advanced for the delay in giving
information to the Complainant. Since the delay is of 25 days the Commission imposes a
Penalty of Rs. 14000/- on Mr. Rahul Verma, deemed PIO/JE under Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day.
Page no. 3 of 4
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, is directed to recover the
amount of Rs.14000/- from the salary of Mr. Rahul Verma 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 Rs.3500/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Rahul Verma and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from April 2010. The total amount of Rs.14000/- will be remitted by 10th
of July, 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
23 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)
CC:
1. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page no. 4 of 4