CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001348/4055
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001348
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shanwaz Khan
D-61, Gali No. -1,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.
Respondent : Mr. Jai Prakash
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Assistant Commissioner,
Shahdara North Zone,
Shahdara, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 04/11/2008
PIO replied : 03/03/2009
First appeal filed on : 26/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 13/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 29/05/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
(Reply received after first appeal filed)
1. No. of license pass for rickshaw trolley Details have been provided which was
w.e.f. 1st April 2008 to 31/10/08? obtained from ECIL/SARK
2. No. of license pass for rickshaw trolley As above.
w.e.f. 1st April 2007 to 31/03/08?
Ground of First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within stipulated time.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA in his order stated that the information provided to the Appellant was incomplete and
directed the APIO(IT) to provide the information in the form of CD or Floppy to the Appellant
directly. The FAA also allowed the Appellant to inspect the complete record pertaining to the
issue. The FAA requested APIO to contact the Appellant on his mobile no. within two days of
the receipt of the receipt of his order and fix up the date for inspection of the record.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of FAA by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Shanwaz Khan
Respondent : Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO (Shahdara North) and Dr. R.C.Patnaik on behalf of IT-Deptt.
The appellant had asked for the number of licenses renewed as also he wanted to inspect the
documents related to license renewal. The data on the number of license renews provided to the
appellant on 3 March 2009. However, no inspection was made available. Talking to the PIO it
appears that he was confused about the inspection that was required. He sought the data form the
IT department very late but he is unable to provide the date on which he sought the data from the
IT Deptt.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will facilitate an inspection of the records on 17 July 2009 at 10.00am. He will be given
photocopies of whatever records he wants free of cost upto 500 pages.
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. 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 27 July, 2009. 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
10 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)
CC:
Dr. R.C.Patnaik
IT Department