Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Shivaji Mahajan vs District Session Judge, Delhi on 12 August, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Shivaji Mahajan vs District Session Judge, Delhi on 12 August, 2010
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                                Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000747/8941
                                                                  Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000747

Complainant                                     :   Mr. Shivaji Mahajan, Advocate
                                                    S/o Late Mr. Suraj Prakash Mahajan, Advocate
                                                    D- 708, Lawyers Chamber, Karkardooma Court
                                                    Delhi-110092

Respondent                                      : Public Information Officer
                                                    District Session Judge, Delhi
                                                    Karkardooma District Courts, Shahdara
                                                    Karkardooma, Delhi

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Shivaji Mahajan filed a RTI application with the PIO, District Session Judge, Karkardooma
District Courts, Shahdara, Delhi on 22/03/2010 asking for certain information. However on not having
received the information within the mandated time, a Complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act
with the Commission On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, District Session Judge,
Karkardooma District Courts on 09/06/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant
and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.

The Commission received a letter dated 13/07/2010 from the above mentioned PIO, wherein it has
been stated that the information has been provided to the Complainant vide a letter dated 01/07/2010.
Further, the reason given by the PIO for the delay in providing the information to the RTI Application is
inappropriate and unreasonable. There appears to be a delay of over 68 days in responding to the RTI
Application dated 22/03/2010.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

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, District Session Judge,
Karkardooma District Courts, Shahdara, Delhi, 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 and disciplinary action of Section 20
(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.

Page 1 of 2

The deemed PIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 21/09/2010 at
10:30a.m. along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and
disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the
deemed PIO may serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the
information, and direct them to be present before the Commission along with the deemed PIO on the
aforesaid scheduled date and time. The deemed PIO should also bring along proof of seeking assistance
from other person(s), if any.

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, 2005

Shailesh Gandhi
. Information Commissioner
12/08/2010

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)

Page 2 of 2