CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/0000114//SG/0422
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00114/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shri Krishan,
House No. 375,
Brahaman Pana,
Village & Post Bawana,
New Delhi – 110039.
Respondent 1 : SPIO,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
Distt. North West,
Kanjhawalan,
New Delhi.
RTI filed on : 23/07/2007
PIO replied : 23/08/2007
First appeal filed on : 19/09/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 04/10/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 26/10/2007
Detail of required information:-
S. No. Information Sought The PIO replied.
1. Calculation report of Khasra No. 396 Desired information has been sent.
in r/o Village Ghoga & also report on
sides thereof. Record of Mahaji
Malkhan of Village Ghoga according
to file book.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“The appellant has stated that reply received is not satisfactory.
PIO/ADM (North-West) is directed to give correct specific and point wise reply to the
appellant within 15 working days positively. Appeal of the appellant is partially
allowed.”
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 25 December, 2008.
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 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 30 December, 2008. 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.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5 December, 2008
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)