CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001503/4758
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001503
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Rathore
142, Iind Floor, New Qutab Road,
Near Pul Mithai, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Sood
Public Information Officer &
Dy. CA-II,
New Delhi Municipal Council
Department of Architecture and Environs
Palika Kendra, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2008
PIO replied : 04/09/2008
First appeal filed on : 14/07/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 07/08/2008
Second Appeal received on : 16/06/2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant in his RTI application has sought information whether the residences built in surrounding
area of Hanuman Mandir was on government’s land, whether these residences were illegally built and
details of their ownership. The Appellant has also sought information regarding the rule, which allows the
flower vendors and other stall owners to conduct their businesses.
Reply of PIO:
The PIO (Dy. C.A.-II) sent the reply, received from the PIO (L&DO). In which it was mentioned that the
land adjoining Hanuman Mandir constructed as residential falls under open space/park. It was government
land and under control of NDMC. The PIO (DY. CA-II) further stated that rest of the information was
still awaited from the PIO (UACC) and PIO (Enforcement).
Ground of First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA directed the APIO to send the reminders to PIO (UACC), PIO (Enforcement) & PIO (L&DO)
to send their replies/information within 7 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory answer received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 31 July 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Rathore
Respondent : Absent
The Appellant stated that the information had not been provided after the orders of the FAA by PIO-
UACC, Pragati Bhavan and PIO Enforcement. The hearing was adjourned so that the respective PIOs
could be present.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 11 September 2009:
Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Rathore
Respondent: Mr. Harish Pal Singh (PIO), Mr. Rajeev Sood (PIO, Architecture)
The PIOs of UACC and L & DO did inform the Appellant as directed by the FAA. However, the PIO of
the Enforcement Department Mr. Gupta took over one year to provide the information to the Appellant on
28/02/2009 that issue does not pertain to Enforcement Department and the squatters sitting near the main
gate of hanuman mandir are allottees of tehbazari. The Appellant states that enforcement is not answered
the query on illegal construction on government land and that there are a number of hawkers who have
not been allotted tehbazaris. In view of this the Commission directs a joint inspection of the site by the
PIO of the Enforcement Department and the Appellant on 22 September 2009. The Appellant will meet
the PIO at the NDMC office at 11 A.M. and a joint inspection will be carried out and signed jointly
recording the observations. The PIO of the Enforcement Department will carry a list of tehbazari allottees
during the inspection. The copy of the inspection report will be provided to the Appellant and the
Commission before 25 September 2009.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO- Enforcement, Mr. Gupta is directed to carry out the joint inspection as directed above and make
a joint inspection report.
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.
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 5 October 2009 at 12.30pm
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.
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
11 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (GJ)
