CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001728/8905Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001728
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Suman Lata
W/o Mr. Amar Nath Gupta
2961, Ground Floor,
Kucha Mai Das, Bazaar Sita Ram,
Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr. Vikash Meena,
Deemed PIO & JE(B)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Government of NCT of Delhi
Building Department, City Zone,
Asaf Ali Road, New-Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 07/10/2009, 10/11/2009
PIO replied : 30/10/2009, 05/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not Enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 23/06/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public PIO
1. Action taken on the Complaint sent by the appellant This information is not available in this
on 29/12/2003 to the SE, SP Zone. office.
2. Action taken by the department after the Prime Same as above
Minister’s order letter No. PGC/2003/27799 dated
20/12/2003, on the appellant’s complaint.
3. Action taken by the department on the report dated Same as above
31/12/2003 against the Executive Engineer, MCD,
Zone.
4. Action taken by the department regarding the Prime Same as above
Minister’s order PGC/2004/28738, dated 21/01/2004.
5. Action taken on letter of 2004. Same as above 6. Same as Above Illegible in the PIO's reply
7. Information regarding why no action was taken on The demolition has been scheduled for
the order No. 340/5/02/SPZ/2004 passed by the 11/05/2004, 15/06/2004, 15/07/2004,
department dated 01/03/2004 regarding unauthorized 04/10/2004, 19/11/2004 and 05/01/2005.
constructions.
8. Illegible copy of RTI application This information is to be obtained from
the land owner or the house owner.
Two RTIs were filed regarding the same issues; one received a reply while the other did not. The 1st
Appeal was filed regarding the Second RTI.
Page 1 of 4
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts that emerged during the hearing on 11/08/20101:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Anshu Gupta representing Mrs. Suman Lata;
Respondent: Mr. Sushil Kumar, Public Information Officer & Superintending Engineer; Mr. Vikash
Meena, Junior Engineer (B);
“The appellant had applied for information on ID no. 559 dated 16/11/2009 for which the
information was provided on 05/03/2010. The appellant has brought to the attention of the Commission
the fact that the MCD has stated that the demolition action was planned six times in 2004 and 2005. The
PIO states that the records show that part demolition action was taken on 15/06/2004 but subsequently the
full demotion has not bee done so far for reasons that would be obvious to any citizen. Since then MCD
has not taken complete action against this unauthorized construction which shows that extent of collusion
in protecting unauthorized construction.
The Commission can only hope that MCD would take action against unauthorized construction instead of
allowing unauthorized construction to continue with its knowledge.
The RTI application was filed on 16/11/2009 hence the information should have been provided to the
appellant before 16/12/2009.Insted of which the information was provided to the appellant on 05/03/2010.
The PIO states that the person responsible for providing the information late is Mr. Vikash Meena, Junior
Engineer (B). Mr. Vikash Meena admits that he was responsible for providing the information.”
Decision dated 11/08/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to give a copy of the record showing the partial demolition was
done on 15/06/2004 to the appellant before 25 August 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Vikash Meena, Junior Engineer (B) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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.
Mr. Vikash Meena, Junior Engineer (B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address
on 20 September 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.
Page 2 of 4
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 during showcause hearing on 20/09/2010:
Appellant: Mrs. Anshu Gupta on behalf of Mrs. Suman Lata;
Respondent: Mr. Vikash Meena, Deemed PIO & JE(B), City Zone;
Mr. Vikash Meena has stated that the RTI application dated 10/11/2009 was received in the PIO’s
office on 16/11/2009 and the same was received by him on 23/11/2009. However, the information had
been provided to the Appellant on 05/03/2010 i.e. after filling of First Appeal. In compliance of the
FAA’s order dated 09/03/2010, the same information was again provided to the Appellant on 15/03/2010.
Further, in compliance of the Commission’s order dated 11/08/2010 a copy of the record showing the
partial demolition was done on 15/06/2004 has also been provided to the Appellant on 18/08/2010.
When the Commission asked Mr. Vikash Meena the reasons for not providing the information
within the stipulated time, he offered no reasonable cause. Mr. Vikas Meena is not able to give any
reasonable cause for not having provided the information. The RTI application was received on
10/11/2009 and the information should have been provided before 10/12/2009. Instead the first
information was provided on 05/03/2010 after a delay of 82 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
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.”
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 the PIO or deemed PIO acted reasonably
and diligently is clearly on the PIO.
Since no reasonable cause has been offered by the Mr. Vikash Meena, JE and Deemed PIO the
Commission imposes a penalty under Section 20(1) of the `250/- per day of delay i.e. `250 X 82 days =
`20,500/-.
Page 3 of 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Vikash Meena, JE and Deemed PIO. Since the delay in
providing the correct information has been of 82 days, the Commission is passing an order
penalizing Mr. Vikash Meena `20,500/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `20,500/- from the salary of Mr. Vikash Meena 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 `4100/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Vikash Meena and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from October 2010. The total amount of `20,500/- will be remitted by 10th
of February, 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 RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
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
Page 4 of 4