CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001195/10343Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001195
Complainant : Mr. Umesh Kumar,
C-741, Bhagwan Gali, Kotla Mubarakpur
New Delhi - 110 003
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya
Deemed PIO & Head Assistant
New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC),
Enforcement Department,
Pragati Bhawan, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Umesh Kumar had filed a RTI application dated 02/07/2010 with the PIO, NDMC, asking for
certain information. However on not having received the information within the mandated time; the
Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the
Commission issued a notice to the PIO, NDMC, on 01/10/2010 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 is in receipt of the submissions dated 03/11/2010 of the aforementioned
respondent, wherein it has been stated that the information has been provided to the Complainant vide a
letter dated 26/10/2010, copy of which was enclosed. It has been further stated that the delay in furnishing
the information was due to shortage of staff etcetera and the responsibility has been shifted onto the
dealing hand. The Commission however does not find the explanation of the respondent reasonable. There
appears to be a delay of over 60 days in responding to the said RTI Application.
Decision dated 07/12/2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
“The issue before the Commission is of not providing the requisite information by the PIO within
30 days as required by law.
From the facts before this Commission, it appears that the PIO has not provided the requisite information
within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before this Commission on 06/01/2011 at 12.30 pm along
with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action
recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this
notice to any such official(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing information, and may direct
them to be present before the Commission along with him on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The
PIO shall also bring proof of seeking assistance from other officials(s), if any. The PIO shall also bring
along with him the copy of Speed Post receipt as proof of dispatch of the information.”
Page 1 of 3
Relevant facts emerging during the Showcause hearing on 06/01/2011:
Respondent: Mr. Rattan Singh, PIO & Dy. Dir. (Enf.) and Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya, Deemed PIO &
Head Asstt.;
The PIO Mr. Rattan Singh has submitted that the RTI application dated 02/07/2010 was received
in his office on 06/07/2010 and the same was forwarded to the deemed PIO & Head Asst. Mr. Ashok
Kumar Suroya on 08/07/2010. The deemed PIO & Head Asst. Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya states that he
received the RTI application on 12/07/2010 and the complete information was provided to the
Complainant only on 26/10/2010 by hand by him to the Complainant.
The RTI application had been received in the PIOs office on 06/07/2010 and the complete information
should have been provided to the Complainant before 06/08/2010. Instead the information has been
provided the information to the Complainant only on 26/10/2010 i.e. after a delay of 80 days. The
Commission asked Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya for the reasons for this delay. He states that he was
overburdened with work and collecting the information required a lot of effort. The Commission has
perused the information provided which is nearly two pages and the nature of the information provided
does not seem to indicate that too much effort was required to furnish this.
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.”
Page 2 of 3
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 deemed PIO & Head Asst. Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya has not given any reasonable cause for the
delay in providing the information to the Complainant the Commission sees this a fit case for levy of
penalty on Mr. Suroya under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. In view of this the Commission imoses a
penalty on Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for a delay of 80 days i.e.
`250/- X 80 days = `20000/- .
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya, Head Assistant and Deemed
PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been of 80 days, the Commission is
passing an order penalizing Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya `20000/-.
The Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to recover the amount of
`20000/- from the salary of Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya 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 `4000/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Ashok Kumar Suroya and remitted by the 10th
of every month starting from February 2011. The total amount of `20000/- will be
remitted by 10th of June, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ANP)
CC:
1- The Chairman
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra, Sansad 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 3 of 3