The CIC has issued a showcause notice to the Public Information Officer of Municipal Corporation of Delhi for “malafide” denial of information to an applicant.
The Central Information Commission also directed the PIO to send a cheque of Rs. 2,000 to the applicant as compensation for expenditure borne by him in visiting his office.
While exercising his Right to Information, Inderjeet Singh Gambhir has filed an application to MCD seeking information on Tehbazari sites situated between Pusa road and new Rohtak road of central Delhi.
Apparently unsatisfied over the details given to him by the PIO, he filed an appeal to First Appellate Authority (FAA) seeking permission to inspect certain official documents as per provisions of the Act.
The FAA allowed his appeal and asked the PIO to facilitate the inspection. However, the PIO did not adhere to the order and forced the applicant to undertake several visits to his office.
The PIO, Om Prakash, had claimed that no records of Tehbazari were available with his office and he has filed a complaint at Karol Bagh Police Station. Aggrieved over lackadaisical response of the PIO, the applicant approached the Commission.
“The appellant had demanded the copy of the said FIR from Om Prakash and inspite of repeated attempts no copy of the FIR was given to him. Thus, no tehbazari records have been shown to the appellant nor any evidence that FIR has been filed for all the lost or stolen files.
“There have been a number of cases of this nature where no Tehbazari records are shown to appellants and subsequently it is claimed that these are missing,” the CIC observed.
“The Commission directs the PIO to either allow an inspection of the relevant files to the appellant... In case the files are not there, a copy of the FIR for the missing files will be given to the appellant on that day. The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs. 2,000 is sent to the appellant before July 30, 2010,” Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said in his order.
While hearing the matter, the Commission noticed that the PIO has violated provisions of the RTI Act by not replying within 30 days.
“He (PIO) has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
“It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions. A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission why penalty should not be levied on him,” said Mr. Gandhi.
