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/2008/00477/SG/00154
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00477
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Budhiraja,
W.E.A. Karol Bagh Jan Kalyan Samiti(Regd)
5/18, W.E.A. Karol Bagh,
New Delhi- 110005.
Respondent 1 : Deputy Commissioner &
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Karol Bagh Zone,Nigam Bhavan,
Anand parbat Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
RTI filed on : 22/10/2007 ID 1202/CRTI
PIO replied : 03/12/07
First appeal filed on : 26/11/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 13/12/2007
Second Appeal filed on :
Information sought Information given by PIO First Appellate Authority's
Order- operative part
Boring/cutting is going on at No boring/cutting of road has From a perusal of the record
service lane in front of 5/11 been found at the alleged site it is seen that the requisite
WEA. Information is sought mentioned in the ID, ie. In reply was not furnished
whether permission has been front of H.no.5/11 WEA, within the stipulated period.
given for it. If not, what Karol Bagh. This division Further, the reply itself does
action has been taken against has not granted any not appear to be satisfactory,
the illegal activity? If sewer permission for road cutting. so the PIO is directed to
line, water line and street In case if the road cutting is furnish the requisite para-
surface get damaged, who done after depositing the wise reply within 15 days
will be responsible? And necessary road cutting from the receipt of this order.
when the repair will take charges, the road is repaired Moreover the PIO is advised
place? by the MCD. In case road to look into this matter
cutting is done by some other personally.
department, the concerned
department carries out the
necessary repair.
The PIO first supplied a reply after the manadated period of 30 days and it did not give the
information sought by the appellant. Even after the order of the First appellate authority, the
PIO chose not to abide by it.
Decision: .
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be provided to the appellant by 25 November, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the information by the PIO within
30 days as required by the law.
It appears that the PIO has also not obeyed the orders of the First Appellate Authority,
thereby willfully disobeying the requirements of the law and also defying the orders of
his senior officer.
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 to present himself before 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 26 November, 2008 at 5.30 pm alongwith his
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He shall also produce evidence of having furnished the information to
appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5 November, 2008