CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00846/SG/0460
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00846/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Sh. Prem Kumar,
BE-360, Lane-I, Hari Nagar,
Delhi-110064.
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Karol Bagh Zone, Anand Parbat,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 29/08/2007
PIO replied : 14/09/2007
First appeal filed on : 29/10/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 29/11/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 20/03/2008
Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an application seeking information in respect of the deceased
pensioner “Late Natho Devi”. The information sought as under:
1. Why the Dept. failed to fix pension and with held all retrial benefits at the time of her
retirement?
2. Why the same was denied during her life time i.e. upto three years beyond the date of
superannuation?
3. Why the Dept. failed to account for such benefits to the LRs of the deceased
employee and the reason thereof despite elapse of three consequential years from the
day of death of ex-employee?
4. What is the progress of above said matter?
The appellant was not satisfied with the cursory reply given by the PIO, hence he filed a First
appeal.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered by his order no. 576 on 22/11/2007:
“From the perusal of the reply furnished by the PIO it is apparent that a halfhearted attempt
has been made to furnish the reply. The PIO is directed to furnish the requisite categorical
reply within 15 days from the receipt of this order and also look into the grievances of the
Appellant personally.”
Since the PIO did not furnish the information even after the specific order of the First
Appellate authority, the appellant filed a second appeal.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 5 January, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented. 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before January, 2009. If the PIO wishes to contend
that some other officer / officers are responsible for the delay since he has sought their
assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such
other officer / officers to be present with their explanations.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
11 December, 2008
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)