CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000863/12733Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000863
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shiv Kumar
Maruti Bhawan, Behind OBC
South Civil Lines, Jansath,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar -251314 (UP)
Respondent : Mr. Jai Prakash
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Vigilance)
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Vigilance Department
7th Floor, Palika Kendra,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2010
PIO replied : 24/12/2010
First appeal filed on : 01/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 04/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 01/04/2011
Information sought by the appellant :
1. The department has received how many complaints against Dr. P. K. Sharma. Medical Officer
of Health, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg. New Delhi –110001?
a. Has the department investigated/taken any action on the complaints?i. If yes, kindly provide the certified photocopy of each.
ii. If not, please define the reason / ground for non taking action.2. The department has received how many complaints against the licensing unit / Health
Department. New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra. Sansad .Marg, New Delhi —
110001?a. Is the department has investigated/taken any action on the complaints?
i. If yes, kindly provide the certified photocopy of each.
ii. If not, please define the reason / ground for non taking action3. The department has received how many complaints against the Health Enforcement & General
Enforcement Department?a. Has the department investigated/taken any action on the complaints?
.i. If yes, kindly provide the certified photocopy of each.
ii. If not, please define the reason/information sought by the appellant ground for non taking
action.
Reply of the PIO (Vigilance Department) :
It is informed that reply to the Para No.1 can not be supplied being denied by the third party.
Regarding Para No.2&3, necessary comments from the concerned department have been asked to
offer. As soon as the same is received, will be intimated accordingly to you.
Ground of the First Appeal:
The information provided is unsatisfactory.
Page 1 of 4
Order of the FAA:
The PIO (Vig.) is directed to supply all the information except the information sought at S.No. 1 to
the appellant within the prescribed period in the RTI Act, from date of the receipt of this order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information sought for has been denied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 07 June 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shiv Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. H. C. Sharma, SO on behalf of Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance);
“The PIO has refused to give information on query-1 claiming that third party has stated that
information should not be supplied. This is without any basis in law. Section-11 of the RTI Act is a
procedural requirement and if information is denied after the objection of the third party reasons for
denial have to be given as per Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of providing that denial of
information was justified is on the PIO and no justification has been offered by the respondent for
denying the information. Denial of information can only be justified based on the provisions of Section
8(1) and the PIO has to give reasons based on which the information was denied. This has not been
done. Further on query-2 & 3 the respondent has written a letter to the Appellant on 31/05/2011 asking
him to deposit and additional fee of Rs.288/-. This is also contrary to the law since Section 7(6) clearly
states that after the period of 30 days the information has to be provided free of cost to the Appellant.”
Commission’s Decision dated 07 June 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the information on all three queries to the Appellant free of
cost before 25 June 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 30 June 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 30 June 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shiv Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance);
The PIO has not provided the information as ordered by the Commission. He has provided
attested photocopies of some pages and given it to the Appellant. He has not provided even the number
of complaints against Dr. P. K. Sharma or the licensing/Health Department. The queries of the
Appellant were fairly simple and the PIO has given a written submission in which now he suddenly
claiming that providing the information is difficult since it is very voluminous. It is significant to note
that this plea was not taken initially nor was this plea put before the FAA. Even during the hearing
before the Commission it was not claimed that providing the information could disproportionately
divert the resources of the public authority.
Page 2 of 4
The PIO Mr. Jai Prakash, Dy. Director (Vigilance) consistently refused to provide the information as
per the provisions of the RTI Act. Initially for query-1 he claims that there was third party objection
but had not given any reasons under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Regarding query-2 & 3 he did not
provide any information. The FAA ordered on 04/03/2011 that he was supporting the PIO’s claim on
query-1 but ordered the PIO to provide the information on query 2 & 3 to the Appellant. Despite this
order the information was not provided to the Appellant. Only after the order of the Commission some
information has been provided, which is just certain photocopies. In this there is not a single complaint
against Dr. P.K. Sharma and the PIO has refused to give the information point wise as sought by the
Appellant. The PIO admits that there are complaints against Dr. P. K. Sharma and is now saying that
he will provide the information to the Appellant.
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.
The RTI application was filed on 17/11/2010 hence the information should have been provided to the
Appellant before 17/012/2010. The PIO Mr. Jai Prakash, Dy. Director (Vigilance) did not provide the
information even after the order of the FAA and despite the order of the Commission has failed to
provide complete point wise information to the Appellant.
Page 3 of 4
The Commission once against directs the PIO Mr. Jai Prakash that the complete
point wise information is sent to the Appellant before 10 July 2011
Since the PIO has refused to provide the information without any reasonable cause and the delay is
much more that 100 days, the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of
the RTI of `25000/- on Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance).
It also appears that the PIO has consistently refused to provide the information. Even after the order of
the FAA he did not provide the information and despite the order of the Commission he has refused to
provide the complete point wise information. Since there has been consistent failure to provide the
information the Commission under its powers under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act recommends
disciplinary action to be taken against the PIO Mr. Jai Prakash.
In view of this under the provisions of Section 20(2) of the RTI Act the
Commission recommends that disciplinary action be taken against Mr. Jai
Prakash, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance)as per the service rules applicable. The
Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council will inform the Commission about the
action taken before 30 September 2011.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this
a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance). Since
the delay in providing the information has been more than 100 days, the Commission is
passing an order penalizing Mr. Jai Prakash of `25000/-.
The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to recover the amount
of `2500/- from the salary of Mr. Jai Prakash, PIO & Dy. Director (Vigilance) 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 `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Jai
Prakash and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August 2011. The total
amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of December, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
30 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (DW))
CC : To,
1- The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Sandad Marg,
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