CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067 Tel:

+91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002762/16214Penalty Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002762

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Gupta, 704, G.T. Road, Delhi- 110 032 Mr. V. K. Bhatia Public Information Officer & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi Building Dept.,Shahdara (North) Zone Shahdara, Keshav Chowk, Welcome, Shahdara, Delhi Mr. Tejvir Singh Deemed PIO & the then EE (B-II-Sh(N) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Presently EE (M-II) Project, Shakti Nagar Extension, Rohini Zone, Rohini, Delhi 17/02/2011 22/03/2011, 06/06/2011 31/03/2011 03/06/2011 30/09/2011 PIOs rep.

Respondent

(1)

(2)

RTI application filed on PIO replied First appeal filed on First Appellate Authority order Second Appeal received on

: : : : :

Sl. Information Sought 1. Action taken on the application dated 19/11/2010 with respect to illegal construction in property adjacent to Property no. 1/1916, Modern Shahdara, Delhi. Information on the current state of the building to also be given. 2. Whether the said property is being constructed illegally? Whether the Building Dept. of MCD has accepted a plan for this construction? Has any other acceptance been made for this construction? During/after construction, which engineer is responsible to ensure that the construction is as per the plan? As per the Ministry of Urban Development and

Queries 1 to 9: No information

Page 1 of 6

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

Poverty Alleviation letter no. J-13036/3/96-DD 11 B dater 28/08/2000 all field officers are supposed to maintain a diary and submit a copy to the supervisory officer. Details for the said property to be provided. If the plan has been passed, has it been ensured that the doors and windows have been made as per it and that they do not open on the road? As per the Indian Electrical Rules, whether the construction is within the minimum distance from the designated spot for voltage lines? Whether the land left open is part of a public pathway as per the Set Back Rules? Whether the plan has been passed for a residential building, flats or a commercial building? If the property has been booked, whether a Demolition Order has been released? By when will prosecution proceedings be carried out against the property? If any other action has been taken, whether the information is available on the internet? Whether the S.H.O. has been instructed to stop the illegal construction or by when that will be done. As per the bye-laws, before starting the construction, when did the builder give written information to the MCD and upon the construction reaching plinth level, which officer of the MCD was informed by the builder? Photocopy with diary no. and other information to be provided.

on the said property is available in the records of the Dept. No action has been taken on the complaints.

Grounds for the First Appeal: Wrong and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): The information provided for query nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 was found to be not complete by the FAA, and the PIO was directed to provide information within 7 days. The FAA also directed the PIO to inform the daily progress of the building if there was a record. Grounds for the Second Appeal: Wrong and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. The information provided after the order of the FAA is also wrong. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 December 2011: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Gupta; Respondent: Mr. V. K. Bhatia, Public Information Officer & SE-II; The Appellant point out that after the order of the FAA the same information which has been provided earlier was provided by the PIO. NO change had been made in any of the points though the FAA had clearly directed that information for quires 1, 2, 3, 4 & 8 was found incomplete. The PIO is now directed to provide the information about the progress of the Complaint in the following format: Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.

Page 2 of 6

*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint. Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided. The PIO states that the person responsible for not providing the complete information despite the order of the FAA was deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE(B-II) Shahdara North Zone.

Commissions Decision on 09/12/2011: The Appeal was allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 30 December 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE (B-II) Shahdara North Zone within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the order of his superior officer. It appears that the PIOs 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. Deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE (B-II) Shahdara North Zone will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 January 2012 at 3.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant. Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 09 January 2012: The following were present Respondent: Mr. Tejvir Singh the then Deemed PIO & EE(B-II-Sh(N)) presently EE(M-II) Project, Shakti Nagar Extension, Rohini Zone, Rohini, Delhi; and Mr. D. P. Ture, First Appellate Authority (Sh(N)); At the time of the hearing on 09/12/2011 the PIO/SE-II Mr. V. K. Bhatia has stated that the responsibility for the reply sent to the Appellant was entirely of the deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh. The FAA had found the reply to be improper and had ordered that information on queries 01, 02 , 03, 04 & 08 should be provided completely. After this direction the same information which have been provided was again sent. The PIO had informed the Commission during the hearing on 09/12/2011 that the person responsible for this was the deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh. The Commission notes with regret that the respondent Mr. Tejvir Singh is stating that Mr. V. K. Bhatia, PIO & SE-II had misinformed the Commission that the responsibility for giving information as per the order of the FAA was of the PIO Mr. V. K. Bhatia.

Page 3 of 6

The Commission therefore issues a showcause notice to the PIO/SE-II Mr. V. K. Bhatia and Mr. Tejvir Singh to appear before the Commission on 06 February 2012 at 11.30AM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on them for not supplying the information to the Appellant.

Adjunct Decision: The Commission directs the PIO/SE-II Mr. V. K. Bhatia and Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE(M-II) to appear before the Commission on 06 February 2012 at 11.30AM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on them for not supplying the information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 06th February 2012:
Appellant: Mr. Rajender Gupta along with Ms. Ranju Gupta Respondent: Mr. V. K. Bhatia, PIO & SE-II, Shahdara North along with Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE (M)-II, Rohini Zone. After discussions with the Respondents it appears that the responsibility for not providing the information rests with the deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh. When the Commission asked the deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh to explain the reasons for not providing the information despite the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 03/06/2010, he stated that he was not sure of which property the information had been sought. The Commission noted that he has not made this clear in his reply dated 22/03/2011 to the RTI application nor did it appear that he had made this claim before the First Appellate Authority. The Commission also notes that in the showcause hearing held on 09th January 2012 also Mr. Tejvir Singh had only tried to shift the blame on the PIO Mr. V.K. Bhatia but had not claimed that he did not understand which properties the information had been sought for. It appears that he is not being truthful and is now claiming that he did not understand what information had to be provided whereas earlier he had not made this claim. Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees; Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:

Page 4 of 6

1) 2) 3) 4)

Refusal to receive an application for information. Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 30 days. Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.

All the above are prefaced by the infraction, without reasonable cause. Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority had in his order of 03/06/2011 directed that the information should be provided within 7 days, in the hearing where Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE (B)-II was present. Despite this no information was provided to the Appellant. The Commission also notes that the Deemed PIO, Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE (B)-II has not furnished the information and has not provided any reasonable cause for not providing the information. Since the delay has been for over 100 days, the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of ` 25000/- as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Appellant points out that the information as per the Commissions order of 09/12/2011 has not been provided by the PIO. The PIO Mr. VK Bhatia is asked to showcause why penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for not providing the information as per the orders of the Commission on 09/12/2011. The PIO Mr. V.K. Bhatia will present himself before the Commission with written submissions on 30th March 2012 at 04.30 PM to showcause why penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him. The Commission directs the PIO Mr. V.K. Bhatia to appear before the Commission on 30th March 2012 along with the information as directed earlier and he will submit the proof of dispatch of having given the information to the appellant in case the information has already been provided.

Decision: As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE (B)-II. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Tejvir Singh `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.

Page 5 of 6

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Tejvir Singh and remit the same by a demand draft or a Bankers Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Tejvir Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from March 2012. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of July, 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 06th February 2012 Copies to: 1The Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi 04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center, New Delhi Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi 110066

2.

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU)

Page 6 of 6