CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00596/SG/1397
Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2008/00596
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ravi Prakash
30/103 Bishwas Nagar,
Gali-6A, Shahdra,
60 Feet Road,
Delhi - 110032
Respondent 1. : Mr. Vijay Singh
Dy. Commissioner (City Zone) & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Deputy Commissioner (City Zone),
MLUC Car Parking, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi – 110002
RTI filed on : 10/08/2007 ID No. 1163
PIO’s Reply : 22/11/2007
First Appeal filed on : 24/12/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 24/12/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 27/02/2008
The appellant had sought certain information from MCD regarding a land occupied by the
Society at Kaccha Bagh.
Sl. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. Give name and proof of the officer who The building department since 5 years
approved construction of Society. approved no layout plan/map.
2. The land given to the Society is on lease or This information pertain to Land and
not. Building department.
3. Owner of this land is MCD or not. -do-
4. If MCD sold this land to society then -do-
furnish copies of the proofs.
5. Construction of the society is illegal or not. No such information.
6. Does MCD has allotted land and building of This information pertain to Land and
society? If yes give copies proofs. Building department.
7. If the construction of the society is illegal This information pertain to Land and
then why MCD did not sealed it? Building department.
Not satisfied by the Reply of PIO the appellant filed First Appeal.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The First Appellate Authority in his ordered that “As regards the quality of information supplied
is totally incorrect and evasive. His submission appears to be correct as against item no. 2 to 4, it
is stated that the information pertains to L & E Department and to be taken from that department
only whereas the PIO who is also dealing with L & E matters of the Zone, should have collected
the information and supplied the same to the appellant. In part 1 of the application, the appellant
has asked for the authority who had given permission for construction of MC employee Co-op T
& C Society office alongwith proof thereof. The reply given is that building department do not
have any information regarding sanction of building plans for the last five years. The RTI Act
specifically stipulates that information up to 20 years of period has to be given. Thus restricting
the information on the basis of five years record is not justified. The information on other items
follow the information in respect of Item No.1.” And the appeal was disposed off.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Sushil Kumar on behalf of Shri Vijay Singh PIO DC City
The respondent has failed to provide appropriate information to the appellant inspite of the clear
orders of the First appellate authority. The PIO Mr. Vijay Singh will provide the all the
information to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant by PIO Mr. Vijay Singh before
15 February 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the required information by the PIO
Mr. Vijay Singh within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
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. .
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 20 February, 2009. He will attach proof of having
given the information to the appellant with his written submissions.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
30th January 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)