CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001800/8947
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001800
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Yadav
B- 101, Second Floor, Neeti Bagh,
New Delhi- 110017
Respondent : Mr. Dalip Ramnani
Public Information Officer & SE-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Office of the Superintending Engineer- I,
South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi- 110016
RTI application filed on : 29/03/2010
PIO replied : 31/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 21/06/2010
Information Sought:
Following clarifications were sought in relation to property no. A1/113, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi:
Whether the building is residential building or commercial building?
1. If it is residential, then why is there a full fledged office on the ground floor and first floor of the
building?
2. What action has been taken so far to seal the premises inspite of the repeated complaints of the
Appellant?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The PIO replied that queries prefixed with what, why, when and whether are not to be replied under the
RTI Act as they do not constitute request for information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of PIO was found to be unsatisfactory. Further, there was gross error on the part of the PIO in
interpreting the definition of “information” contained in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which does not bar a
citizen from asking questions prefixed with what, why, when and whether. The Appellant rephrased and
posed the same questions before the FAA by omitting the said prefixes.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Reply sent to the Appellant must be reviewed and reframed in light of the queries raised in the appeal. The
PIO was required to provide the relevant information within 10 days from the date of issue of the order of
the FAA.
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No reply from the PIO in furtherance to the order of the FAA has been received by the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. R. S. Gupta, EE(B) on behalf of Mr. Dalip Ramnani, PIO & SE-I;
The PIO gave a completely irresponsible reply initially stating that because the appellant had
framed his information queries as questions the information would not be provided. The RTI Act nowhere
states that if the demand for information is made in the form of question information would not be
supplied. Though the FAA had ordered information to the provided on 20/05/2010 within 10 days the
reply was sent to the appellant only on 17/06/2010 in which also it was stated that as regards query-1 the
RTI application has been transferred to Town Planning Department. The respondent states that the order
issued by the FAA Mr. S. K. Midha on 20/05/2010 reached the respondent’s office only on 03/06/2010.
Such a completely inefficient method of working where an order directing the PIO to give information
within 10 days reaches the PIO after 13 days cannot deliver anything properly. When the respondent
received it on 03/06/2010 he waited for another 14 days and transferred the RTI application with respect
to query-1 to the PIO Town Planning Department. The PIO of Town Planning Department has not sent
any information to the appellant. This ridiculous sequence of events shows inefficiency and the appellant
has been unnecessary harassed in having to file second appeal before the Commission and come for this
hearing.
In view of this the Commission decides that the appellant must be compensated by the public authority as
per Section 19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him. The Commission awards a
compensation of `2000 to the appellant which must be send to the appellant before 20 September 2010.
The Commission also directs PIO Town Planning to ensure that information on query-1 is sent to the
appellant before 05 September 2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque of `2000 as compensation is sent to the
appellant before 20 September 2010.
The Commission directs PIO Town Planning Department to give the information to the
appellant on query-1 to the appellant before 05 September 2010.
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. 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.
Page 2 of 3
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 21 September 2010 at 2.30pm
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
13 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
CC:
To,
Public Information Officer
Town Planning Department
(Municipal Corporation of Delhi)
Nigam Bhawan,
Kasmiri Gate, Delhi
Page 3 of 3