Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000341/11901 and Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000341. Case: Mr. Sohan Lal Vs PIO and SE, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Central Information Commission
|Case Number:||Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000341/11901 and Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000341|
|Party Name:||Mr. Sohan Lal Vs PIO and SE, Municipal Corporation of Delhi|
|Judges:||Shailesh Gandhi, I.C.|
|Issue:||Right to Information Act|
|Judgement Date:||April 07, 2011|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
Shailesh Gandhi, I.C.
Information sought by the Applicant:
1. The Appellant sought the following information regarding area known as Sarai Hafiz Bana, sadar Bazar:
(a) Copy of its layout plan.
(b) Copy of its Zonal Plan.
(c) Copy of the resolution/notification by which the streets/roads of the area were vested in the MCD.
Reply of the PIO:
2. No reply by the PIO.
Grounds of first Appeal:
3. The reply was not provided.
Order of the FAA:
4. The FAA ordered the deemed PIO to provide the information within 10 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
5. The information has not been provided to the Appellant even after the order of the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
6. The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Sohan Lal;
7. The FAA had ordered deemed PIO Mr. V.S. Rai, JE(B) to issue the reply to the Applicant within 10 working days as available on the records. The FAA has recorded that no reply has been sent to the Applicant.
8. The Appeal is allowed.
9. The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before 30 April 2011.
10. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
11. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
12. It appears that the PIO's 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...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL