CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000948/12817Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000946
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sumit Gupta
Chamber no. 402
Western wing, Tishazari courts
Delhi-l 10054
Respondent : Mr. B. M. Sharma,
JE (Civil) & Deemed PIO;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
South Zone, Zonal Office Building,
Green Park, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 24-12-2010 PIO replied : not replied First appeal filed on : 31-01-2011 First Appellate Authority order : 09-02-2011 Second Appeal received on : 06-04-2011 Information Sought by Appellant:
1. Copy of the measurement book of the work awarded vide work order no. 154 dated 13/10/2008
in MA-II Gulmohar Park.
2. Copy of the sample records of all the samples tested for the work.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
No information provided
Order of the FAA:
Present : Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-I/PIO is present. Appellant is not present.
Contents of the appeal were examined. The appellant was aggrieved by non reply from PI0/SE-I.
PI0/SE-I stated that the reply/Information to the appellant could not be given to the appellant as the
requisite information has not been received from the concerned APIO i.e. EE (MS-II). Decision:
Submissions PlO. Appellant’s written queries have been examined. P10/SE-I- is directed to supply the
information to the appellant within next 2 weeks. PlO is directed to provide the information within two
weeks.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
FAA order not followed.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on June 10, 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shalabh Gupta representing Mr. Sumit Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE and Mr. Deepak Kapila, AE on behalf of Mr. Dilip Ramnani,
Public Information Officer & SE-I(South zone);
“Mr. B. M. Sharma states that the measurement book was missing and Mr. Dilip Ramnani
PIO/SE-I was informed about this when he went for the First Appellate hearing. It is surprising that the
PIO does not appear to have informed the FAA about this. Subsequently on 02/05/2011 the
Page 1 of 4
information has been sent to the appellant. The respondent has also stated that the measurement book
was missing and hence there was a delay in providing the information.
Regarding this the Appellant claims that he has been only given five numbers of sample reports
whereas he believes there should be more. The respondent states that there are only five sample reports
on the records.
Mr. B. M. Sharma states that he was responsible for providing the information and states that since the
measurement book was not available he did not provide the information.”
Decision dated June 10, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. B. M. Sharma PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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.
Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE & Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 01 July 2011 at 2.30pm 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 at the show cause hearing held on July 1, 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE (Civil) & Deemed PIO;
As per the order of the FAA dated 09/02/2011, information was required to be provided within
two weeks. The respondent has submitted written submission and the Commission has perused this.
The Respondent stated that copies of the sample records were being carried by the concerned
Respondents during the hearing held before the FAA. Since the Appellant was not present, the said
samples could not be provided. The measurement book was missing and therefore, it could not be
provided to the Appellant within the time stipulated by the FAA. The Respondent submitted that since
only part information was available, he did not send the samples instantly to the Appellant after the
order of the FAA. Once the measurement book was found in the records of the Respondent, he
provided the same along with the samples to the Appellant on 02/05/2011.
The Commission has perused the submissions of the respondent and also heard his explanations. Mr.
Sharma states that the measurement books were in a cupboard and the drawers of this table, but he
could not locate them. He also claims that the copies of the sample reports were with him but he felt he
should not send these alone until he located the measurement books. The measurement books are very
important records since based on these payments are made to contractors. For measurement books to
be missing has serious implications and the deemed PIO Mr. B. M. Sharma is claiming that though he
knew that they were present in his cupboard or drawers he could not find them. Ultimately he claims
he found these on 18/04/2011 and he submitted the information on 25/04/2011 to the PIO to send it to
the appellant. If the Commission believes the version of the Deemed PIO it has to believe that despite
knowing that every days delay would lead to a personal penalty of `250/- per day of delay he did not
manage to find the measurement books which he knew were in his drawers or cupboard. This does not
appear to be a reasonable explanation.
Page 2 of 4
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 received on 28/12/2010 and the information should have been provided to the
Appellant before 28/01/2011. Instead Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE (Civil) & Deemed PIO provided the
information only on 25/04/2011 i.e. after a delay of 84 days. Since no reasonable cause has been
offered by Mr. B. M. Sharma to justify the delay in providing the information the Commission
imposes a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE(Civil) & Deemed PIO
at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 84 days i.e. `21000/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this
a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE(Civil) & Deemed PIO. Since the
delay in providing the information has been of 84 days, the Commission is passing an
order penalizing Mr. B. M. Sharma `21000/-.
Page 3 of 4
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `21000/- from the salary of Mr. B. M. Sharma 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 `4200/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. B. M. Sharma and remitted by
the 10th of every month starting from August 2011. The total amount of `21000/- will
be remitted by 10th of December, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
01 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)
Copy to:
1- The Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. Dilip Ramnani
Public Information Officer & SE-I(South zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
South Zone, Zonal Office Building,
Green Park, Delhi.
Page 4 of 4