CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003557/11144
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003557
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Roop Kumar
32 Dhorgarh, Narela
Delhi-40
.
Respondent : Dr. B. M. Mishra
Public Information Officer &
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Narela),
Office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Narela)
Government of NCT of Delhi,
MPCC Building, Village Naya Bans,
Delhi-110082
RTI application(2) filed on : 09/07/2010
PIO replied(2 replies) : 29/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 06/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 26/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 20/12/2010
S. No. Information Sought ( RTI -1) Reply of the PIO
1. Length of lal dora in bhorgarh 68/1. 118.02 meter.
2. Can the house plot be located according to Lal Dora Not available in the records..
certificate in Bhorgarh 68/1.
3. Can the house or plot be identified by the direction in Yes
Lal Dora
4. Can lal dora be made on DDA acquired land also.. .certificate not attached and DDA does not give
Lal Dora
5. Total length of 11/0 parmeshvari which is empty Certificate not attached and other information
according to Lal Dora certificate dated 10.2.2004. can been taken by coming to the office on
working days.
S No. Information Sought (RTI- 2) Reply of the PIO
1 Action taken on complaint dated 10.5.2010 at D Matter pertains to SDM(HQ), north West District,
. C kanjhawla Kanjhawala, Delhi
2 the officer responsible for the delay in action Matter pertains to SDM(HQ), north West District,
. Kanjhawala, Delhi
3 If no action has been taken on the complaint Matter pertains to SDM(HQ), north West District,
. then how much time will it take? Kanjhawala, Delhi
4 Monthly income and time period of work of Sh. Matter pertains to SDM(HQ), north West District,
. Mir Singh Kanjhawala, Delhi
First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO is not complete.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO/SDM (NW) was ordered to furnish the requisite information within 15 days of the order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Roop Kumar;
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Sharma, NT on behalf of Dr. B. M. Mishra, PIO & SDM(Narela),
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had ordered that information regarding the action taken on the
Appellant’s complaint should be provided. The Appellant claims that no information has been provided to him so far.
The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant and also the action taken on the complaint in
the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
The Respondent states that Mr. Tribhuwan, LDC who was present at the First Appellate Hearing is a
deemed PIO who was supposed to provide the information within 15 days of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, NT is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant
before 10 February 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Tribhuwan, LDC within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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.
Mr. Tribhuwan, LDC will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
01 February 2011 at 11.30am 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
27 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)
CC: To,
Mr. Tribhuwan, LDC through Dr. B. M. Mishra, PIO & SDM(Narela);