http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-24102008-01.pdf
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01626/SG/00016/penalty
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01626
Showcause Hearing on 24 October 2008 at 2.20pm
Present: Mr. Vijay Singh PIO and Mr. Ansar Executive Engr. Buildings
Appellant : Mohd. Mohtaram Usmani
The appellant had basically sought information about action taken in respect of
his complaints for illegal structures. Inspite of the Commission’s directive
Mr. Ansar has chosen to give an irrelevant answer to the appellant. The
Commission warns Mr. Ansar not to take such liberties with the Commission’s
orders. Mr. Ansar claims he did not understand the RTI queries. It appears he
prefers not to understand a simple query. The Commission has again explained
the query and he has now promised to send the information by hand delivery to
the appellant by 31 October, 2008. On the issue of penalty Mr. Vijay Singh the
PIO has submitted a written submission stating that the person responsible for
answering the RTI application was Shri Raju AE to whom the RTI query had been
passed on 17 October, 2007. He is also stating that Mr. Raju did not hand over
the application to his successor when he was transferred on 24 October, 2007.
He contends that therefore after
this nobody could have done anything about the RTI query, since Mr. Raju did
not give it to anybody.
The Commision questioned Mr. Vijay Singh as to why the RTI application was
transferred to Mr. Raju on 17 October, while the application appears to have
been transferred to the PIO on 13/9/2007 as per the letter no. 589 of
13/9/2007. If the information was not with him he should asked the appropriate
officer to provide the information. He transferred the application on 17
October. There can be no reason why he could not have sought the information
from Mr. Raju by 18 September at the latest. Mr. Vijay Singh is giving vague
replies but has no evidence nor written submissions to prove anything.
It is clear that Mr. Vijay Singh by his own admission is guilty of being
responsible for the delay of 30 days by not asking Mr. Raju for the information
latest by 18 September. Mr. Raju will be asked to show cause why he should not
be penalized for the period after that.
The Commission finds Mr. Vijay Singh guilty and culpable for 30 days delay and
penalizeshim Rs. 250 per day of delay as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI act.
The penalty thus works out to: 30 days X Rs. 250 = Rs. 7500/-
Order delivered in open chamber.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 October, 2008
Copy of the decision being sent to MCD for deduction of the amounts of penalty.
