CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002028/14363Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002028
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Maurya,
9817/8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110055
Respondent : Dr. R. K. Rawat
PIO & DHO,
Health Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Sadar-Paharganj Zone,
Idgah Road, Paharganj, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 25-05-2011
PIO replied on : 03-06-2011
First Appeal filed on : 24-05-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : ----- ----- --.
Second Appeal received on : 25-07-2011
Information Sought:
That an order was issued from the Dy. MHO Office to the all zones, in which the officials who are
employed since 12 years as Assistant Public Health Inspector was given duty to serve as Public Health
Inspector.
Provide information about names of the APHI who are working in present in Sadar-Paharganj Zone. Also
inform that in accordance to which date they get order to get promotion Give photocopy of that order.
2. If the said order was issued under your zone then give the photocopies of chalan book. And also inform
about the laws under which these chalan are not issued/given.
3. Give information about the legal/lawful actions taken against the officers who do not work/take action
on the said order.
4. That the current APHI are not promoted as PHI and it is like a insult for them. Please provide
information about if the department took any action against the guilty officers.
5. If any institution wants to complaint against the guilty officers, give information about the procedure.
6. Give details about the Name and post of all the officers who do not work on the order issued.
The PIO Reply:
Question 1 to 6 do not come under the Purview of RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"Not received any order."
Page 1 of 4
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during the hearing held on 30/08/2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Maurya;
Respondent : Dr. R. K. Rawat, PIO & DHO;
“The respondent has not provided the information available as per records. Without any
application of mind the PIO refused to give the information saying that the information sought does not
come in the purview of the RTI Act. The PIO admits that some of the information was available. The
Commission asked the PIO the basis on which he stated that the queries do not come under the purview of
the RTI Act. The Respondent is able to offer no explanation for this.”
Decision dated 30/08/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant as per available
records before 10 September 2011.
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 appears 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 23 September 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.”
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 23/09/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Maurya;
Respondent: Mr. R.K. Rawat, PIO & DHO;
The Appellant has submitted that in compliance of the Commission’s order he received some
information form the PIO vide letter dated 19/09/2011. The information with regard to query no. 2, 5 & 6
is still incomplete. The PIO & DHO Mr. R.K. Rawat has offered no reasonable cause for no providing the
information even after the Commission’s order dated 30/08/2011. For query no. 2 the PIO Mr. Rawat is
claiming that the information pertains to the Law Department but he neither sought any assistance from
the said department nor transferred the RTI application to the concern department.
The respondent has sent the information on 19/09/2011 providing information which has the following
deficiencies:
1- Information has not been provided on queries 2, 5 & 6.
The PIO Mr. Rawat is directed to provide this information to the Appellant before
30 September 2011.
Page 2 of 4
The PIO was asked why he has not provided the information when the RTI application was filed. The PIO
claims that he could not understand the information which was sought by the Appellant. However, the
PIO’s reply sent on 03/06/2011 states that “question 1 to 6 do not come under the purview of the RTI Act
2005.” It does not state anywhere that the PIO did not understand the queries. The RTI application had
been filed on 25/05/2011 hence the information should have been provided to the Appellant before
25/06/2011 instead the information was provided to the Appellant only on 19/09/2011 i.e. after a delay of
84 days.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI 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.”
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information.
2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30
days.
3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section
(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty
each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable
cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the
law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was
justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
Since no reasonable cause has been offered for delay of 84 days in providing the information the
Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. R.K.
Rawat, PIO & DHO. The Commission imposes a penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI act on Mr.
Rawat at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 84 days i.e. `250/- X 84 days = `21000/-
Page 3 of 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. R.K. Rawat, PIO & DHO. Since the delay in providing
the correct information has been of 84 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing
Mr. R.K. Rawat `21,00/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `21000/- from the salary of Mr. R.K. Rawat and remit the same by a demand
draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at
New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and
Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti
Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `4200/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. R.K. Rawat and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from November 2011. The total amount of `21,000/- will be remitted by
10th of March, 2012.
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
23 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)
Copies to:
1- The Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 4 of 4