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/2008/01342/SG/0458
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01342/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. ShayamBudhiraja,
5/18, W.E.A., Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
Respondent 1 : The Suptd. Egg. & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Karol Bagh Zone, Anand Parbat Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
RTI application filed on : 03/04/2008
PIO replied : No reply.
First appeal filed on : 12/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 06/06/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 26/07/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had filed an appeal seeking information regarding the length and width of each
internal roads/streets of Block No. 12,13,6,5,4,12A,15A,16A,17A,18,8,14A,13A,9A,6A,7A
and 11A of WEA, Karol Bagh.
1. Internal roads/streets which fall under Commercial use category.
2. Internal roads/streets which fall under mixed land use category.
3. Internal roads/streets which fall under Pedestrians used category.
The PIO’s Reply:
No Reply.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“It is revealed that the information requested has not been supplied to the Appellant so far.
After hearing the Appellant and respondent PIO, it is, hereby, ordered that existing width and
length of the roads requested by the Appellant be given by the PIO to Appellant within 10
days of the issue of the orders, failing which, PIO may be penalized as per the provision of
the RTI Act,2005.”
The First appellate auhority’s order was not implemented hence the appellant had to file a
Second appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 5 January, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO 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, Supdt. Engineer Karol Bagh, 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 10 January, 2009. If the PIO wishes to contend
that some other officer / officers are responsible for the delay since he has sought their
assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such
other officer / officers to be present with their explanations.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
11 December, 2008
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)