Information regarding unauthorized construction in front of the railway station

Background        

The appellant had filed a complaint with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding unauthorized construction in front of the railway station, Delhi. He later filed an application under RTI seeking the status of complaint and the action taken with respect to it. He also wanted to know the details of the officer who looked in the matter and the certified copy of the action taken and the copy of the map passed by MCD etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information stating that no action was taken on the said property, no notice was issued and the map was not sanctioned. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to re-visit the replies and send complete, point-wise reply to the appellant as per the available record. The appellant claimed that no information was provided to him despite the order of the FAA.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant as per the order of the FAA. Under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. The Commission also recommended disciplinary action under section 20(2) 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. against the PIO for persistently refusing to give the information despite repeated reminders. The respondent submitted that the assistance of a Junior Engineer (JE) was taken to provide the information after the order of the FAA. JE submitted that the FAA’s order was never given to him and hence he cannot be held responsible for not providing the information to the appellant. Further he stated that the orders of the FAA were received by AE-I (Assistant Engineer) and another JE. The AE admitted that the order of the FAA was given to him for implementation but he gave the FAA’s order to JE (B) to provide the information without applying his mind. JE (B) stated that he was not the holder of the information but he assumed that AE must have made photocopies of the FAA’s order and have sent it to the various JEs as it was a routine practice.

View of CIC

The Commission noted that the information should have been provided to the appellant as per the order of the FAA but it was provided only after the order of the Information Commission. The Commission further observed that the responsibility for implementing the order of the FAA was that of AE who behaved irresponsibly. The Commission further observed that as per section 19(5) 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. of the RTI Act, the burden of proving that denial of information was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO but it appears that the deemed PIO i.e. the AE was expecting CIC to act as reminder service. Under section 20(1) 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. of the RTI Act the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on AE stating that the delay has been for over 100 days and no reasonable cause was offered for the delay.

Citation: Mr. Rajender Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi in CIC/SG/A/2011/003528/17269Penalty