CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000416/2992
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000416
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vinod Rawal,
15, 2nd floor, Satya Niketan,
Opp. Venkatswara College,
New Delhi - 110 021
Respondent : Mr. N.K. Gupta,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Karol Bagh Zone,
Anand Parvat,
New Delhi - 110 005
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2008
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First Appeal filed on : 02/01/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 26/02/2009
Second Complaint filed on : 13/03/2009
Detail of required information.
1. What is the status of 4/18, Ist floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110008, please
confirm whether property has been regularized or not?
2. If yes, please give date of de-sealing and regularization?
3. Please confirm whether construction activity/modification has been approved, if
so please give photocopy of order.
4. Who is the owner of 4/18, Ist floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110008?
The PIO Reply:
Not mentioned
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“PIO is directed to give the reply within 10 days of the issue of this order and provide the
photocopies of the documents asked. In case of non-receipt of reply, applicant is at liberty
to go to the CIC for further relief.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Vinod Rawal
Respondent : Mr. Manoj Verma on behalf of Mr. N.K.Gupta PIO
The respondent has brought a reply purportedly sent on 20/3/2009 which is alo not of the
1st floor, but of the 2nd floor.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 10 May, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO Mr. N.K.Gupta 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 28 May 2009 at
5.00 pm 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.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29 April 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)