CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002055/9320Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002055
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Lalita Gera
B-7/222, Sector - 4,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
Respondent : Mr. Dalip Singh
Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Land and Estate Department
Town Hall, Delhi - 06
RTI application filed on : 01/12/2009
PIO replied : 30/12/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. What was the fate of the appellant’s No such application of dated 27.11.2000 is
application dated 27.11.2000 for dues to be available in file
paid on vacation ‘of MCD quarter No. D-47,
Azadpur Colony, Delhi-110033
2. Copies of office noting & orders of officers The relevant copies of office notings and orders
made with regard to above subject may be obtained from the office after depositing
the requisite fee in any working day.
3. Basis on which demand of penal rent and its The demand of the penal rent is calculated on the
calcu1ation as well as the rules under which the basis of (Living area X) The rate of damage
same has been claimed. Copies of the applied charges decided time to-time subject to revision.
rules should be supplied. The copy applied rules can be verified from
F.R.S.R. available in the Market.
4. Actions taken on the Appellant’s on As per your representation dated 08.06.2009, the
my department has issued a demand letter in favour of
Representations including dated 08.06.2009 as the appellant amounting to Rs 3,17,788/-(M/s
well as D.O No.458/2005 dt.22.03.2005 written Three Lacs seventeen thousand seven hundred
by Shri Subhash Arya the then opposition eighty eight only), but the letter dated 22.03.2005
leader to the Commissioner. written by Sh Subhash Arya, the then leader of the
opposition is not available in relevant file.
5. Action taken on the Appellant’s letter dt. Question is not clear.
11/08/2009 wherein vacation of Q.No. D-47.
Azadpur Colony, in 2001 was conveyed &
orders passed by competent Authority thereon
made with regard to above subject.
Page 1 of 4
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO is directed to provide the reply in the form of a self contained note so that the status of the case
becomes clear to the Appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. R. K. Satija representing Ms. Lalita Gera;
Respondent: Absent;
The appellant states that even after the order of the FAA no information has been provided. It
appears that the PIO has defied the order of the FAA.
Decision dated September 09, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before
05 October 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
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 27 October 2010 at 11.00am
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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.”
Relevant Facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on October 27, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. K. Satija representing Ms. Lalita Gera;
Respondent: Mr. Dalip Singh, PIO & AC and Mr. Mahavir Singh, AO.
As per the order of the FAA dated 20/04/2010, Mr. J. D. Sharma, the then PIO & AC was directed
to provide a reply in the form of a self contained note so that the status of the case becomes clear to the
Appellant. The Commission observed that the order of the FAA has been complied with only after the
order of the Commission on 09/09/2010. The Respondents stated that Mr. J. D. Sharma, the then PIO &
AC was responsible for not complying with the order of the FAA.
Page 2 of 4
Mr. J. D. Sharma is directed to appear before the Commission on 13 December 2010 at
04.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on his for not
complying the order of the FAA. If he does not appear before the Commission on 13 December 2010
the Commission will assume that he has nothing to explain and will impose penalty under Section
20(1) on Mr. J. D. Sharma.
It appears that the requisite information was sought to be provided vide letter dated 15/10/2010 to
the Appellant. The Respondents stated that the said information was sent to the Appellant by UPC.
However, the Appellant stated that he has not received the same. The information was provided to the
appellant by hand before the Commission today i.e. 27/10/2010. The Respondents did not produce any
proof of dispatch of letter dated 15/10/2010 before the Commission. Moreover, as per the Commission’s
order dated 09/09/2010, information as directed by the FAA was required to be given before 05/10/2010.
However, the respondents claim that they have sent the information on 15/10/2010 which the appellant
did to receive. The respondent was asked to show the speed post receipt by which the information was
sent to the appellant on 15/10/2010. They claim that they do not have any such proof but claim that they
have sent by UPC on 15/10/2010. The Commission has issued directions of all public authorities to ensure
that all RTI communications are sent by speed post since it has been reported to the Commission that fake
UPC receipts are obtained by public authorities and appellants do not receive any of the information. The
information has been provided to the appellant before the Commission on 27/10/2010. As per the order of
the Commission the information should have been provided to the appellant before 05/10/2010 instead it
has been given to the appellant only on 27/10/2010 i.e. after a delay of 22 days. The current PIO Mr.
Dalip Singh, Assistant Commissioner has been at this post since 20 September 2010. Hence, he was
responsible to send the information to the appellant before 05/10/2010.
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
Page 3 of 4
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.
Since the delay in providing the information beyond the date given by the information Commission has
been for 22 days and no reasonable cause has been advanced for giving the information late. The
Commissions sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Dalip
Singh, PIO & AC at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 22 days i.e. Rs250/- X 22 days = `5500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Dalip Singh, PIO & AC. Since the delay in providing
the information has been of 22 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr.
Dalip Singh `5500/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `5500/- from the salary of Mr. Dalip Singh 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 of `5500/- be deducted from the salary of Mr.
Dalip Singh and remitted by the 10th December 2010.
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
October 27, 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
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. D. Sharma through Mr. Dalip Singh, PIO & SE;
Page 4 of 4