Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal vs Mcd on 19 February, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal vs Mcd on 19 February, 2009
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
                        Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                            New Delhi - 110067.
                           Tel : + 91 11 26161796

                                               Decision No. CIC /WB/C/2008/00480/SG/1823
                                                  Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00480/SG

Complainant                           :        Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal
                                               Shop No. 27, Property No. 5863
                                               Swadeshi Market, Sadar Bazar
                                               Delhi

Respondent                                :    Deputy Commissioner
                                               Sadar Paharganj Zone, MCD
                                               New Delhi-110027

Facts

arising from the complaint:

Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, had filed a RTI application with Deputy Commissioner, Sadar
Paharganj Zone, MCD, New Delhi-110027 on 01/12/2007 asking for certain information.
Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30 days, he had filed a complaint
under Section 18 to the Commission. The Commission issued a notice to the PIO on
23/12/2008 asking him to supply the information and sought an explanation for not
furnishing the information within the mandated time.

The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the
complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the
information to the complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be derived is that
the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per
the provisions of the RTI Act. His failure to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that
he has no reasons for the refusal of information.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

The PIO will send the complete information to the complainant before March 12,
2009. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The
PIO is therefore, asked to give a written submissions showing cause as to why penalty
should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20
(1) of the RTI Act. He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 17 March, 2009. He will
also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 19, 2009.