CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/00174/2733
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/00174
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
WZ-814, Rishi Nagar,
Shakurbasti, Delhi-110034.
Respondent : Jt. Assessor and Collector & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Rohini Zone, Sector-17,
Rohini, New Delhi.
RTI filed on : 13/10/2008
PIO replied : 05/11/2008
First appeal filed on : 23/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 13/01/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 28/01/2009
Particular of required information:-
1. Provide the certified copy of the survey Reports of the property bearing No. WZ-853,
Rani Bagh, Shakurbasti, Delhi-110034.
2. Provide the certified copy of the Mutation Applications alongwith supporting
documents in respect of the property bearing No. WZ-853, Rani Bagh, Shakurbasti,
Delhi-110034.
The PIO replied.
In this connection, department is unable to supply the information as required by you in
r/o the property mentioned above as the owner /occupier of the property has informed that no
information /documents regarding the said property be supplied to the applicant or any third
party.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
“The case of the Appellant is that he has applied for certain information under the RTI
Act, 2005 from the PIO. The Appellant informed that a case is pending in the Hon’ble High
Court and the Appellant is the tenant in property No. WZ-853, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Pur, Delhi.
PIO also informed that a notice was issued to the owner / occupier of the above said
property in response to which the owner/occupier has informed that no information/documents
regarding the property in question be supplied to the applicant. The Appellant was also
informed that this information can be obtained by him through the Hon’ble High Court.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Sharma PIO
The PIO claims that he asked the third party, and since the third party objected
He did not provide the information. The First appellate authority has also taken the same
position. Neither the PIO nor the First appellate authority Mr. V.K. Gupta appear to have any
inclination to understand the RTI Act. Both have very casually refused information without
even an elementary understanding of the law.
Giving the information is the rule as defined in Section 3 of the Act, and denial can only be as
per the provisions of Section 8 (1). The onus of justifying denial of information is on the PIO
on pain of being penalized. Section 20 (1) of the Act states:
Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the
case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-
section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly
given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information
which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such
penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on
the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be.
The PIO has not applied his mind at all and has given no reasons for denial.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 30 April, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 5 May, 2009. He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 April 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)