Penalty Under Section 20(1) of RTI


Complaint No: CIC/WB/C/2006/00040
Dated: 23/5/’06
Right to Information Act – Section 18 (1)

Name of Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Goel
Name of Public Authority: MCD

Applicant Shri Ajay Kumar Goel of Sampooran Parivartan and resident of Pandav Nagar Delhi applied to the PIO of MCD, Delhi on 17/11/’5 asking for information on the following:

1) Action taken on a letter written by the applicant to Deputy Commissioner Shahdra Zone, Delhi on 27/4/’04 requesting implementation of High Court orders.of 19/4/’04

2) Date wise movement of file

3) If implementation delayed, person responsible. If not the time to be taken 4) Amount collected by MCD from weekly markets in Pandav Nagar and Mayur Vihar as Tehbazari fee, after passing of Delhi High court order 5) Approximate fee recovered per year from Tehbazari in Pandav Nagar and Mayur Vihar.
The PIO Shahadara Zone replied vide his No, 1151/PIO/Sh(S)/2005 of 19/12/’05.
However there was no response to requests at 1) to 3) above, although the data on revenue collected separately for Pandav Nagar and Mayur Vihar was provided over the course of a year, which would therefore cover the requests at 4) and 5) above. The PIO did mention that the removal of weekly bazaars being a policy matter could not be decided at the Zonal level. However, the appellant’s request was only seeking information, not asking that action be taken. The choice before the PIO was clear:
a) If the information regarding implementation of the orders, of the High Court are in his possession he should have provided it.
b) If it were not, he should have sought it u/s 5 (4), if it were held at any level of the public authority of which he is PIO
c) If the information were not with the public authority of which he is PIO, he should have, within five days of receipt of the appeal, referred it to the requisite public authority u/s 6 (3) (ii).
Decision Notice
The PIO is directed to supply the information sought by the applicant at 1) to 3) above, using any of the alternatives earmarked at a) to c) in the previous paragraph. Since this was not supplied in the time frame prescribed u/s 7(1) it will be provided free of charge u/s 7 (6) of the Act.

Since the PIO has been held in violation of prescribed limits u/s 7(1), he may appear before this Commission on June 2, 2006 at 11.00 am to show cause why penalty u/s 20 (1) should not be imposed on him.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner

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:

(PK Gera)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!