Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.


Central Information Commission
Shri.Izizul Hassan vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 17 November, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002346/15744
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002346

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Sh. Izizul Hussain
                                            563/271, Glai No. 3/4 ,
                                            A- Block, Nr. Masjid Inshaallah,
                                            Chauhan Banger, New Seelampur,
                                            Delhi - 110053

Respondent                           :      PIO & SE

Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The SE,
Shahdara North Zone,
Keshav Chowk, Welcome Shahdara,
Delhi – 110032

RTI application filed on : 01-06-2011
PIO replied on : 23-06-2011
First Appeal filed on : 29-07-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 02-08-2011
Second Appeal received on : 26-08-2011

Information Sought:-

The Appellant has sought the following information regarding seelampur vidhansabha AC – 65 zone,
Ward No. 249, 250:-

1) What is the sanctioned master plan for the colony?

2) How much land has been left for the development for human resources and what is the present
condition of that land.

3) provide the copies of the work /schedule copy/maps, of the work being done at mentioned colonies
by the MCD in the Year 2007, 2008, 2009,2010 and 2011.

4) when will the repairing work be done on the roads that has big holes.

PIO’s Reply:-

The appellant was provided with the following reply :-
In view to 1) – It relates to Town planning department.
In view to 2) – It relates to Town planning department.
In view to 3) – The detail of the work to be carried out on the brahmapuri road is enclosed. The work
to be done on Gokulpur Naala relates to Project Department.
In view to 4) – The work is being done by the workers.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory reply was given by PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

“The PIO is directed to supply the present status of the site to the appellant. Regarding
Gokalpur drain and adjoining nalla, the report has not supplied to the appellant till date. PIO is
directed to supply the complete information to the appellant within 10 days from the date of issue of
this letter.”

Page 1 of 2

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO and Unsatisfactory order was passed by the FAA.

Decision:

The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information has
been provided.

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate
Authority to the appellant before 10 December 2011.

From the facts before the Commission it 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 without any reasonable cause.

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 15 December 2011. He will also send the information sent
to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the
information to the appellant.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)

Page 2 of 2


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.151 seconds.