CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000193,304/2764
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000193,304
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ramvir Singh,
MH No. 753, House No. 819,
Kapashera, New Delhi.
Respondent : ADM (SW) & PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera, New Delhi-110037.
RTI application filed on : 15/08/2008 APIO : not replied. First Appeal filed on : 27/10/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 22/12/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 02/02/2009 Detail of required information:-
The appellant had asked in RTI application regarding action taken report of
Pond. What action had been taken by the department on working of Pond it’s,
situated in Kapashera, New Delhi? What are the reasons of delay?
PIO replied.
Not replied.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“The undersigned has gone through the application filed before the PIO
(SW). the matter pertains to BDO and since original application was sent to BDO it
should have been forwarded to PIO with reply in the matter instead of simply
sending it. It was wrongly marked to SDM (VV). Complete reply is be given by
BDO through PIO within 10 days.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Ramvir Singh
Respondent: Mr. M. S. Dagar BDO on behalf Mr. Y.V.V. Rajashekhar PIO
Mr. M.S. Dagar the deemed PIO gave the information to the PIO on 30/12/2008,
whereas his assistance was sought only on 24/12/2008. The information was sent by
the PIO to the appellant on 5/1/2009. The reason for the delay was that the PIO Mr.
Rajashekhar forwarded the RTI application to the SDM, Vasant Vihar who did not
have the information at all. Thus the information was provided to the appellant late
due to the carelessness of the PIO Mr. Rajashekhar.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information has been sent to the appellant on 5/9/2009. The issue
before the Commission is of not supplying the 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 Mr. Rajashekhar 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.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 April 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)