CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
3rd Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00302 dated 8-6-2006
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rakesh Agarwal
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of India (MCD)
ORDER
Announced on 23.9.’09
In the 2nd adjunct to the above appeal we had directed as follows:
“Our orders in this matter are clear. We had accepted the
argument of PIO Shri Aggarwal that the MCD system was
defective thus causing the delays. The purpose of asking the
Commissioner, MCD to enquire into this matter so as to
apportion the penalty was to enable him to streamline the
processing structure of RTI application so that such delays do
not occur. This has not been done thus defeating the purpose of
imposing penalty.
We, therefore, direct Shri Ashok Kumar, Commissioner, MCD to
conduct an enquiry into this matter, apportion responsibility for
the delay in supply of information, and submit the same to us by
th
29 January, 2008. It is clarified that the orders for imposition of
penalty still stands. The only question remaining is now as to
who will bear the liability of the penalty which is the question the
answer to which was to depend upon the findings of
Commissioner, MCD. Since such enquiry, however, has not
been done the apportionment of penalty will be decided by us
upon receiving the report of the Commissioner, MCD.”
In this decision two officials of MCD were imposed penalty of Rs.
25,000/- and Rs. 10,500/- respectively. Rs. 25,000/- from one of the officials
of the MCD had been remitted, but the amount of Rs. 10,500 which was
imposed on the then Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara (South Zone) was not
recovered. The concerned officials had in fact submitted a review petition
before this Commission and Commission by its order dated 14.1.2008 had
directed the Commissioner, MCD to conduct an inquiry for apportionment of
responsibility in delay in supplying the information. As inquiry report of Shri
Rajmohan Singh, Additional Commissioner was received, in which he had
indicated that Shri S. C. Kohli the then Deputy Commissioner is not liable and
1
the entire liability for delay in providing the information was on Shri J. P.
Aggarwal who took over as Deputy Commissioner of the Zone and that his
penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- which is maximum under RTI Act has already
been remitted. On the other hand the Commission had already issued
directions to Shri S. N. Shukla, Controller of Accounts to recover an amount of
Rs. 10,500/- from the salary of Shri S. C. Kohli.”
Section 20 of the RTI Act provides for imposition of penalty where:-
(i) the CPIO has, without any reasonable cause, refused to received
application for information; or
(ii) has not sent information within the time specified under section 7
(1) or
(ii) malafidely denied the request for information; or
(iii) knowingly give incorrect; incomplete of misleading information; or
(iv) destroyed information.
In this case, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed as penalty
payable by Shri Aggarwal and a sum of Rs. 10,500/- has been imposed on
Shri S. C. Kohli who was the PIO from the date of issue of the order of the 1st
appellate authority i.e. 21.4.2006 to 1.6.2006. An enquiry was entrusted to the
Additional Commissioner MCD to ascertain as to whether this penalty is to be
distributed amongst those responsible for delaying the response from the date
it became due, From the report submitted by Additional Commissioner, MCD,
it appears that Mr. S. C. Kohli was relieved from the zone w.e.f. 28.4.2006.
The order to provide information was passed by 1st appellate authority on
21.4.2006. The report of the Additional Commissioner is silent as to when Mr.
Aggarwal took over and whether there was any other PIO during the period in
question. We therefore found the report of the Addl. Commissioner
incomplete and lacking in detail. The Additional Commissioner, MCD was
therefore called to produce records and specify the name and designation of
the PIOs who were holding charge beginning from 21.4.2006, the day on
which order to give information was passed by First Appellate Authority, till
28.3.2007,, the day final order was passed by this Commission
acknowledging that the appellant Shri Rakesh Aggarwal was satisfied with the
2
information obtained. However, Shri Rajmohan Singh, Addl. Commissioner
did not appear on the scheduled date & time. When contacted over telephone
it was brought to our notice by the O/o Addl. Commissioner (HQ) MCD that
Shri Singh has retired and also that they are not aware of any such summons.
Consequently, the following appeared before us on 23-9-2009:
Appellants
Shri Rakesh Agarwal.
Shri Niranjan Kumar.
Respondents
Shri Rajesh Prakash, Addl. Commissioner.
Shri Rajmohan Singh, Retired Addl. Commissioner.
We also received a request from the present Additional Commissioner
(Education) Shri Janak Digal dated 22-9-09 submitting as follows:
“It is submitted that the matter under the said appeal pertains to
the Engineering Department of Shahdara (South) Zone, MCD.
At the relevant time, the 1st Appellate Authority for the said Zone
was Shri Raj Mohan Singh, Addl. Commissioner (HQ) being the
administrative in charge of the Zone. Presently, the
administrative control of Shahdara (south) Zone is under Shri R.
K. Srivastava, Addl. Commissioner (Engineering). The
undersigned was never in charge of Shahdara (South”) zone.
Therefore, the above said summons may please be sent to Shri
R. K. Srivastava, Addl. Commissioner (Engg.), who is the in
charge of the Shahdara (South) Zone.”
Shri Raj Mohan Singh, former Additional Commissioner, MCD
submitted a copy of his note noting of 12-2-2008 to the Commissioner, MCD
in which after summing up the processing of this application he has come to
the following conclusion:
“From the above fact, it is evident that the First Appellate
Authority had issued specific directions to the then Ex. Engineer/
Division-XI, vide his order dated 21.4.2006, to ensure that
complete information, as demanded by the appellant, is
provided to him within 5 days, if not provide as yet. Hence, it
was incumbent upon him to comply the impugned orders of the
First Appellate Authority, which he did not comply. If the said
orders of the First Appellate Authority had been complied with
by the then Ex. Engineer/ Division-XI, the present situation
would have arisen. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned
penalty of Rs, 10,500/- so imposed by the CIC upon Shri S. C.
Kohli, the then Dy. Commissioner (Shahdara-South Zone) may
be recovered from Shri Ashok Gupta, the then Ex. Engineer/
Division-XI, as he is sole responsible for the delay in providing3
information to the appellant, and for non-complying with the
directions of the First Appellate Authority.”
This matter, however, was not clear in the report received from Shri Raj
Mohan Singh through his letter of 28-2-2008. In this matter we had accepted
the arguments of the PIO, MCD that MCD’s system was defective thus
causing the delay. Our purpose for asking an enquiry was to apportion the
penalty to enable the Commissioner, MCD to streamline the structure of the
RTI Cell so that such delays do not occur. This had not been done, thus, in
our view, defeating the purpose of imposing penalty. However, the law
prescribes a maximum limit of penalty, i.e. Rs. 250/- per day subject to a
maximum of Rs. 25,000/- which the total amount of penalty in a single case
cannot exceed. The basis of computation of penalty amount is delay per day
and not per PIO. From this it can be inferred that in one case concerning one
RTI Application, the maximum penalty that can be imposed cannot exceed Rs.
25,000/-. If there are more than one PIO responsible for the delay, the
amount of penalty may be apportioned on a pro-rata basis.
In the present case, therefore, the full penalty imposable in the single
case stands recovered from Shri Agarwal. There is therefore no further
penalty recoverable. This appeal is, therefore, now closed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
23-9-2009
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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
23-9-2009
4