Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Virender Malik vs Sdm (Narela) on 20 February, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Virender Malik vs Sdm (Narela) on 20 February, 2009
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
                        Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                            New Delhi - 110067.
                           Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                               Decision No. CIC /WB/C/2008/00401/SG/1850
                                                  Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00401/SG

Complainant                           :        Mr. Virender Malik
                                               AN-23, Shalimar Bagh
                                               New Delhi -110088.

Respondent                                :    Public Information Officer
                                               SDM (Narela), BDO Office Complex,
                                               Alipur, Delhi.


Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Virender Malik had filed an RTI application with the PIO, SDM (Narela) on
29/09/2007 asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated
time of 30 days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission. The
Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 30/12/2008 asking him to supply the information
and sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.

The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the complainant,
nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the
complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be derived is that the PIO has
deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the
provisions of the RTI Act. His failure to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that he
has no reasons for the refusal of information.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

The PIO will send the complete information to the complainant before March 14, 2009. The
PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO is
therefore, asked to submit a written explanation showing cause as to why penalty should not
be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) of the
RTI Act by March 19, 2009.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 20, 2009.