CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000179/2736
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2009/000179
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Neelam Bala,
Pocket.E-138-C, 2nd Floor,
Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi-110095.
Respondent : SDM(HQ)(NE) & PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Office of the ADM/PIO (NE),
DC office Complex, Nand Nagari,
Delhi-110093.
RTI application filed on : 06/11/2008
PIO replied : 16/01/2009
First Appeal filed on : 15/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Complaint filed on : 28/01/2009
The Appellant had asked about if any person who lived in Govt. allotted
House/Corporative Organization. But he left that house and city for many years and lives
in another city then he could use his identity proof as following:-
S.No. Information Sought PIO’s reply
1. If any person has changed his address can By using valid identity, in sub registrar
he make GPA, SPA,Will, Sale Agreement office SPA, GPA, Will, Sale Agreement
etc. on behalf of other party by using the etc. could be registered to the name of
identity proof (like Ration Card, Driving another party.
Licence, Voter ID Card etc.) which had
been issued on his previous address.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Ms. Neelam Bala
Respondent : Absent
The information has been provided late.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the 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 supplied the
information 40 days late. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of
Section 20 (1) . He is liable to pay a penalty of 40x Rs.250= Rs.10000/-.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why a penalty of Rs. 10000 should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 5 May, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 April 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)