CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/002843/10341Penalty
Appeal No.CIC/SG/A/2010/002843
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vivek Garg
18/1, GF, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi-110007
Respondent : Mr. V.P. Dahiya,
Deemed PIO & EE(M-IV),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,
Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 06/05/2010
PIO replied : 21/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 25/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 02/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 07/10/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information relating to Mr. Satish, Junior Engineer(Building), Civil Lines Zone,
MCD, Delhi- his appointment, tenure, his assets list of demolition orders issued against various illegal
authorities, other departmental action, etc.
Reply of the Public Information Officer:
The PIO provided in his reply vide letter dated 21/05/2010 that some of the information asked for by the
Appellant can be obtained by depositing necessary charges. Whereas some of the queries did not relate to
their Department or the record was not available.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Dissatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellate Authority in its order agreed with the information provided by the PIO and asked the
Appellant to deposit the necessary charges for providing the information. But the Appellant was not ready
for the same.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on December 7, 2010:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. J. S. Yadav, EE(B) on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;
“The PIO did not indicate the number of pages for which the Appellant should have deposited the
additional fees. Similarly for query-1 the PIO had only stated that the information was not available with
the Building Department (Civil Lines Zone). In this the PIO should have either sought assistance under
Page 1 of 5
Section-5(4) or transferred the RTI Application under Section 6(3). The Appellant had sought information
which does not appear to be voluminous. Section 7(3) of the RTI Act states, “Where a decision is taken to
provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information,
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an
intimation to the person making the request, giving-
(a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by
him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee
prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period
intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded
for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;”.
The PIO did not inform the Appellant about the number of pages and the amount of fee to be paid by the
Appellant to obtain the information.
The Respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information was the then EE(B)
Mr. V.P. Dahiya Deemed PIO.”
Decision dated December 7, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs Mr. J. S. Yadav to provide the complete information
available on the records to the Appellant before 25 December 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
EE(B) Mr. V.P. Dahiya Deemed 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.
It appears that the deemed 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.
The then EE(B) Mr. V.P. Dahiya Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 06 January 2011 at 12.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also send the information
sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the
information to the appellant.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on January 6, 2011:
The following were present:
Respondents: Mr. V.P. Dahiya, the then EE(B) Civil Lines Zone & Deemed PIO presently EE(M-IV),
Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi; and Mr. A. K. Mittal, AE (B).
The Commission observed that further to its order dated 07/12/2010, certain information was sent
to the Appellant vide letter dated 14/12/2010. The information provided does not appear to be complete
and should have been provided specifically point- wise.
Mr. J. S. Yadav, JE (B) is hereby directed to provide specific point- wise information on each of the
queries of the RTI application dated 06/05/2010 to the Appellant before January 24, 2011.
Page 2 of 5
Mr. V. P. Dahiya stated that on receipt of the RTI application, the PIO & SE sought his assistance under
Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. A reply was furnished initially by Mr. Dahiya on 21/05/2010, which was
inadequate and unsatisfactory. On perusal of the reply dated 21/05/2010, the Commission noted that some
of the information sought did not pertain to the Building Department, MCD (CLZ). The Deemed PIO Mr.
V. P. Dahiya’s answer to most queries was that “This information is not available in the building
department CLZ”, and in other cases it has been stated that no copies available. On questioning the
Deemed PIO Mr. Dahiya it is evident that he was aware where the information would have been available.
However, he made no effort to either obtain assistance or transfer the RTI application to the relevant
departments. Further, in relation to three queries, he has stated that information shall be provided on
payment of necessary fees without informing the Appellant of the number of pages and the amount of fees
to be paid. It appears that the Deemed PIO Mr. Dahiya made no effort to provide the information but was
carelessly dealing with the RTI application.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Dahiya did not specify the amount of pages or the prescribed fees
that the Appellant was required to pay for the requisite information. Mr. Dahiya submitted that he was
merely the deemed PIO and that the PIO & SE should have sought assistance or transferred the RTI
application to the concerned officer/ department.
Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act state as follows:
“(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it
necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.
(5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all
assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of
the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
From a reading of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, it appears that the PIO has the power to seek assistance
from any other officer to provide information. Section 5(5) of the RTI Act stipulates that the officer whose
assistance is sought under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act shall be treated as the PIO for the purpose of ‘any
contravention;’- Section 20 of the RTI Act. It must be noted that Section 5(5) of the RTI Act does not
stipulate that the officer whose assistance is sought shall be treated as the PIO for the purposes of any
other provision of the RTI Act except Section 20. Therefore, the law does not envisage that the officer
whose assistance is sought under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act can pass on the liability to any other officer
by seeking his assistance. It is implied that the officer whose assistance is sought is then responsible in an
administrative capacity to ensure that the information is gathered and provided.
The RTI application has been made on 06/05/2010 and the complete information should have been
provided to the Appellant before 06/06/2010. Instead some relevant information has been provided to the
appellant on 14/12/2010. Thus the delay in providing the information is clearly over 100 days.
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
Page 3 of 5
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 has been made on 06/05/2010 and the complete information should have been
provided to the Appellant before 06/06/2010. Instead some relevant information has been provided to the
appellant on 14/12/2010. Thus the delay in providing the information is clearly over 100 days. Since no
reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. V. P. Dahiya, Deemed PIO & the then EE(B) the Commission
sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Since the delay in providing the information has been far over 100 days the Commission sees this as a fit
case for levying the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) & Deemed PIO. Since
the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing
an order penalizing Mr. V. P. Dahiya `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the
Act.
Page 4 of 5
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. V. P. Dahiya 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 `5000/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. V. P. Dahiya and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from February 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th
of June, 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)
CC:
To,
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3. Mr. J. S. Yadav,
JE (B)
Office of the Superintending Engineer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civil Line Zone,
Zonal Office Building,
16, Rajpur Road, New Delhi-110054
Page 5 of 5