Central Information Commission Judgements

Ms. Seema Bhattacharya vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 28 May, 2009

Central Information Commission
Ms. Seema Bhattacharya vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 28 May, 2009
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building, Near Post Office
                     Opp. Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus,
                               New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel : + 91 11 26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000325/3479
                                                           Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000325

Complainant                            :        Ms. Seema Bhattacharya
                                                A-124, First Floor
                                                Dilshad Colony
                                                Delhi-110095

Respondent                              :       Public information Officer
                                                Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                                Shahdara North Zone
                                                Keshav Chowk, Shahdara
                                                Delhi-110095

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Ms. Seema Bhattacharya had filed a RTI application with the PIO at the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, Shahdara South Zone on 23/01/2009 asking for certain information. Since
no reply was received within the mandated time of 30 days, she had filed a complaint under
Section 18 to the Commission.

The Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 20/04/2009 asking him to supply the
information by 15/05/2009 and sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within
the mandated time. The PIO has informed the Commission vide letter dated 19/05/2009 that, the
information has been provided to the complainant on 21/04/2009 by the APIO.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

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. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .

The PIO is directed to give written explanation to show cause why penalty should not be
levied on him under section 20 (1) of the RTI act, for defying the provisions of the Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
May 28, 2009

(Please refer to the above mentioned decision number in case of any further communication)