8/3/2019 PIO Penalty 25000

1/6

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

Respondent (1) : Mr. V. K. BhatiaPublic Information Officer & SE-II

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Building Dept.,Shahdara (North) ZoneShahdara, Keshav Chowk, Welcome,

Shahdara, Delhi

(2) : Mr. Tejvir SinghDeemed PIO & the then EE (B-II-Sh(N)

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Presently EE (M-II) Project, Shakti Nagar Extension,Rohini Zone, Rohini,

Delhi

RTI application filed on : 17/02/2011

PIO replied : 22/03/2011, 06/06/2011

First appeal filed on : 31/03/2011

First Appellate Authority order : 03/06/2011Second Appeal received on : 30/09/2011

Sl. Information Sought PIOs rep.

1. Action taken on the application dated 19/11/2010 with respect to illegal construction inproperty 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 forthis 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

to 9: No

information

Page 1 of 6

8/3/2019 PIO Penalty 25000

2/6

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.

3. 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?

4. As per the Indian Electrical Rules, whether the construction is within the minimum

distance from the designated spot for voltage lines?

5. Whether the land left open is part of a public pathway as per the Set Back Rules?

6. Whether the plan has been passed for a residential building, flats or a commercial

building?

7. 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 hasbeen taken, whether the information is available on the internet?

8. Whether the S.H.O. has been instructed to stop the illegal construction or by when thatwill be done.

9. As per the bye-laws, before starting the construction, when did the builder give writteninformation to the MCD and upon the construction reaching plinth level, which officer ofthe MCD was informed by the builder? Photocopy with diary no. and other information to

be provided.

on the said

property i

available in

the recordof th

Dept.

No actionhas been

taken on

thecomplaints

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, andthe 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 FAAhad clearly directed that information for quires 1, 2, 3, 4 & 8 was found incomplete. The PIO is nowdirected to provide the information about the progress of the Complaint in the following format:

Date on which

Complaint received

Name and designation of

The officer receiving it.

Action taken

Date on which forwarded to

Next officer/office.

Page 2 of 6

8/3/2019 PIO Penalty 25000

3/6

*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 penaltyshould not be levied on him.

Deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE (B-II) Shahdara North Zone will present himself before theCommission 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 willalso 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 & 08should 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 personresponsible 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

8/3/2019 PIO Penalty 25000

4/6

The Commission therefore issues a showcause notice to the PIO/SE-II Mr. V. K. Bhatia and Mr. TejvirSingh 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. TejvirSingh 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 RTIapplication 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 nowclaiming 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 casemay 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 destroyedinformation 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 CentralPublic 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

8/3/2019 PIO Penalty 25000

5/6

1) Refusal to receive an application for information.

2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 30days.

3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or

misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request

4) Obstructing in any mannerin 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 fiftyeach 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 thelaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO wasjustified 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 thisno 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 notbeen 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

8/3/2019 PIO Penalty 25000

6/6

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 KrantiBhawan, New Delhi 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ permonth every month from the salary of Mr. Tejvir Singh and remitted by the 10

thof 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:

1- The Municipal Commissioner

Municipal Corporation of Delhi04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,

New Delhi

2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,

Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary

Central Information Commission,2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,

New Delhi 110066

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

Page 6 of 6