Naresh Kumar vs Mcd, Kanjhawla on 6 October, 2008

Last Updated on

Central Information Commission
Naresh Kumar vs Mcd, Kanjhawla on 6 October, 2008
                                   Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                                 Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
                                         Tel: 91 11 26161796
                                  Decision No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01573/SG/00009
                                  Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01573

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Naresh Kumar
A 47, New India Apts., Sector 9
Rohini, Delhi – 110085

Respondent : Rajesh Chopra
Addl. District Magistrate (North West) & PIO Under RTI Act 2005
MCD, Kanjhawla
Delhi 110081

RTI Application: 11/07/2007 ID no. 1129
PIO Reply : no reply
1st Appeal: 21/08/2007
First Appellate Authority order:19/09/2007

Information was asked from the land acquisition collector regarding the
supplementary/review award and certain other information. No reply was given. The
appellant therefore filed a first appeal and the First Appellate authority ordered
information to be provided within 15 days. The PIO has not implemented the order of the
First Appellate Authority, hence the second appeal was filed.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant     :      Naresh Kumar
Respondent :         Absent

The PIO has chosen not to remain present. From the papers it appears that has not
provided the information in 30 days and also not obeyed the orders of the First Appellate
Authority who is a senior officer. He has willfully decided not to follow the RTI Act, and
his superior officer’s orders.

It is apparent from the facts before us that the PIO first violated the law by not furnishing
the information within 30 days. Subsequently he has disregarded the orders of the First
Appellate Authority,-who is also an officer senior to him in the Public authority.
From the facts before the Commission it is appears 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. .
The Appeal is therefore allowed and the PIO is directed to provide the information
within 10 days.

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 to present himself before
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 22nd October, 2008 at 5.00pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He shall also produce evidence of having
furnished the information to appellant

This decision is announced in open chamber.

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

(Shailesh Gandhi)
Information Commissioner
6 October, 2008

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *