CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No CIC/WB/C/2007/00382 dated 28.05.2007
Right to Information Act 2005-Section 18
Appellant: Shri Rajesh Raina
Respondent: Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
ORDER
In our Decision of 22.2.08, we had directed as follows :
“as will be seen from the above, the response to the original
application due on 23.2.’07, has been given on 24.4.’07.The PIO
Dy Director (IL) is therefore directed to show cause as to why a
penalty of Rs.250/- per day from the date when the information fell
due i.e. to the date when the information was actually sought to be
supplied, amounting to Rs.15, 000/- should not be imposed on him
under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO may submit his written
submission on or before 10.03.2008.”
Consequently, we received a letter dated 27.3.2008 in response to this
Decision from respondent Shri Y.V.V.J. Rajasekhar on 19.3.08 in his present
posting as A.D.M. (South-West) with the following explanation :
“In this context, it is to mention that the original application dated
23.1.2007 (Annexure-2) was addressed to Pr. Information Officer,
DDA (Copy enclosed) and it never reached the undersigned.
However, another letter dated 19.3.2007 with same contents and
questions was sent to Commissioner (Land Disposal) only in the
last week of March, 2007i.e. 22nd March (copy enclosed as
Annexure-3). The dealing Assistant has put up this application on
17.4.2007 (copy of the note enclosed as Annexure-4) and we have
sent necessary information/ reply on 24.4.2007 (copy enclosed as
Annexure-5). It is noteworthy to mention that this Department
received application on 22.3.2007 (Annexure-3) after excluding the
receiving time, the undersigned has replied within the stipulated
time. Copy of the reply dated 24.4.2007 is enclosed.”
As may be seen from the above, the application was received on 22.3.07
by respondent Shri Rajasekhar in his capacity as Dy. Director (IL) DDA . There
has been a delay of 2 days beyond 30 days in seeking his reply which
1
Rajasekhar has sought to pass on to the dealing asstt. We have in the past
cases decided that it is the responsibility of the PIO to ensure that his office runs
efficiently. If the Dealing Assistant had failed to respond he can be suitably
chastised within office procedure, but the PIO cannot escape responsibility for
the failure of his office to run. In this case, therefore, Shri Y.V.V.J. Rajasekhar,
ADM South West has been unable to show reasonable cause for the delay
of two days beyond the mandated time limit and has thus become liable for
the penalty of Rs. 500/- @ Rs. 250/- per day.
Divisional Commissioner (South West), New Delhi is directed to recover
this amount from Shri Y.V.V.J. Rajasekhar, ADM (South West), either directly or
through deduction from his salary by 3rd August, 2008. He will remit the same to
Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments,
Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110011 under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar,
Deputy Secretary and Joint Registrar of this Commission.
Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner)
15.7.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
(PK Shreyaskar)
Jt. Registrar
15.7.2008
2