STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

(www.infocommpunjab.com)

Sh. Rohit Sabharwal, President

Kundan Bhawan, 126, Model Gram,

Ludhiana

….. Appellant

Vs.

Public Information Officer

o/o Municipal Corporation,

Ludhiana

First Appellate Authority

O/o Municipal Corporation,

Ludhiana

…..Respondents

Appeal Case No. 1681 of 2016

Present : (i) None is present on behalf of the appellant

(ii) Sh. Bhupinder Singh, PIO, Sh. Danesh, PIO, Sh. Ankit Midha, PIO and Sh. Navneet Khokhar, Building Inspector.

ORDER

This case was heard on 18.07.2016 but the orders are pronounced today.

2. The brief facts of the appeal are that Sh. Rohit Sabharwal- the appellant vide an RTI application dated 24.12.2015, has sought the following information from the PIO, MC, Ludhiana:-

1.  Provide copy of the complete file generated while taking action on our above said letter.

2.  Provide the copies of the assessment sheets of the challans mentioned in our above referred letter.

3. Failing to get any information within 30 days, as mandated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the appellant had filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority

Contd….P-2

-2-

AC: 1681/2016

vide application dated 05.02.2016 under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act , 2005, which was received in the Commission on 11.05.2016 and accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for 28.06.2016.

4. During the hearing on 28.06.2016, the following orders were passed :-

"Failing to get any information within 30 days as mandated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the appellant had filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority vide application dated 05.02.2016 under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and subsequently approached the Commission in second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act,2005, which was received in the Commission on 11.05.2016 and accordingly, a notice of hearing was issued to the parties for today.

2. The representative of the appellant-Ms. Sukhjinder Kaur, Advocate states that no information has been supplied by the PIO. She further states that Nodal Officer had forwarded the application under RTI Act to the Assistant Town Planner, Zone-C, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for supplying the information as the record relates to their zone. The appellant filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority vide their letter dated 5.2.2016 and the First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 11.3.2016 directed the respondent-PIO to supply the information within the stipulated period. Despite the order of the First Appellate Authority. no information has been supplied to the information-seeker.

3. The PIO has written a letter dated 4.01.2016 to the appellant stating that the record is voluminous and he is advised to visit their office on any working day and inspect the file and get the requisite information. Shri Bhupinder Singh and Shri Danesh both PIOs of their respective Sections state that they have joined the concerned branches recently and the application for information was put up to them only yesterday. They are requesting to grant some time to

Contd….P-3

-3-

AC:1681/2016

expedite this issue. They further stated that prior to them Shri Ankit Midha, PIO and Shri Navneet Khokhar, Building Inspector were dealing with the case file.

4. Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Shri Danesh and Shri Ankit Midha, all the PIOs and Shri Navneet Khokhar, Building Inspector-cum-APIO are directed to show cause why penalty be not imposed on them under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 for not supplying the information within the statutorily period under the Act. They should file their written reply in this regard on or before the next date of hearing. They may make use of the next date of hearing as an opportunity for the purpose of personal hearing while following the principles of natural justice. The case will be taken up for all concerned. They be served show cause notice by way of registered post.

5. To come up on 27.7.2016 at 11.30 A.M. to be heard further at Chandigarh."

5 From a perusal of the file , it has come out that initially, instead of providing the information or writing to the appellant that the information asked for by him is voluminous or under some other plea cannot be supplied. Rather the respondents intimated to the appellant to inspect the record and seek the information whatever he wants. Their reply to the RTI application was not upto the mark. They should, have however, supplied the information, as asked for or raised some other appropriate concern of the Department with regard to the following of any other procedure for sharing the information or furnishing thereof. They did not do anything else at that stage.

6. As they did not comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, as per mandate of the RTI regime, which is to ensure necessary transparency and accountability with an openness of the working of their offices, the appellant was left with no other option but

Contd….P-4

-4-

AC:1681/2016

to file first appeal before the First Appellate Authority. He filed the first appeal which was duly heard by the First Appellate Authority Sh. Ghanshyam Thori, Additional Commissioner-cum,-FAA and passed the formal speaking order in this behalf. With that order he directed the respondent-PIOs to furnish the information free of cost within seven days. It is harrowing to know that none of the respondent-PIOs has supplied the information or furnished any kind of response. Still again they asked the appellant to visit their office to do the inspection and get any record whatever he may so wish. It is highly deplorable on the part of the respondent-PIOs to deal with the provisions of the RTI Act so casullay, especially when the formal order was passed by the FAA directing them to provide the necessary information free of cost. The respondent-PIOs after the order of the FAA still had two alternatives with them (a) either to provide the information (b) or if they were not satisfied with the order of the FAA, they had the option to file an appeal under the RTI regime before the State Information Commission against the order of the First Appellate Authority. They neither provided the information on the directions of the FAA nor did they come forward to file any appeal or complaint against the order of the FAA.

7. Failing to get the information, the appellant filed the second appeal before the Commission. On receipt of the notice from the Commisison’s office the respondents requested for some more time to deliver the information. A letter dated 30.07.2016 has been received vide diary no. 19868 dated 02.08.2016 from the appellant stating therein

that information pertaining to point no. 1 of his RTI application has been received.

8. The perusal of the file and the conduct of the respondents made the Commission to issue them a formal show cause notice as to why action under Section 20(1) of the

Contd….P-5

-5-

AC:1681/2016

RTI Act 2005 should not be taken against them and also to hear their part of the story. They were also provided an opportunity to file their written replies and also make use of this opportunity of personal hearing under the principles of natural justice. Accordingly the respondents appeared before the Commission on the given date and submitted their formal written replies. The replies filed by them have been due given thought and considered with due compassion but it has come out that all the respondents not only neglected their duty under the RTI regime but had the audacity to not comply with the orders of the FAA for supplying the information within seven days or even to provide the information in the intervening period, that is from the date of receipt of the notice and their personal hearing before the Commission which was fixed for 27.07.2016.

9. Such kind of failure on the part of the respondents is totally intolerble and if they are spared for not giving any punishment that will give an impression to the rest of the respondents that they can just get away with non compliance of the RTI Act which has been enacted to ensure participative nature of management between the public & the public authorities and also to know as to what is happening behind the closed doors with regard to the governance affairs of the public authorities and their functioning.

10. After giving thoughtful consideration and due perusal of the facts of the case and the material available on record, including the representations made by these respondent-PIOs, while giving their own explanation with regard to the lapses which have been made by them, I have come to the conclusion that they have failed to

Contd….P-6

-6-

AC:1681/2016

perform their job as per the mandate of the RTI Act which requires the public servants to ensure due transparency and accountability in the democratic setup where the people are the masters. It has also come out that they have not only failed to perform their duties at their own level but also show the audacity for not complying with the explicit orders of the First Appellate Authority or approach the Commission against those orders in any manner.

11. It has been further established from conduct that they have failed to provide the information even after getting the formal show cause notice from the Commission. This speaks volumes as to how much respect regard they have in their minds to the provisions of the RTI Act, which mandates that all the public authorities will ensure that the RTI ACT-2005 duly honoured by them whenever any citizen approaches them to get any public information for which they have right to ask for as per the RTI regime. All their failures put together make me to believe that their sheer neglect to perform their duties will be met only after they are duly taken to task as per the provisions of the RTI Act i.e Section 20(1) which provides that any delay on the part of the respondent-PIO beyond 30 days is to be penalized @ 250/- per day and to the maximum of Rs. 25000/-

12. Under these circumstances, I am left with no other option but to decide the question of imposition of penalty and quantum thereof upon Sh. Bhupinder Singh, PIO, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, Shri Danesh, PIO, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana,

Contd….P-7

-7-

AC:1681/2016

Shri Ankit Midha, PIO, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Shri Navneet Khokhar, Building Inspector-cum-APIO(deemed PIO), Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. In this case the intervening period is too large and in addition their failure to comply with the orders of the FAA and also of the Commission. Accordingly a penalty of Rs. 25000/- is imposed on each one of them.

13. The amount of penalty i.e. Rs. 25000/- each should be deducted from their salary in two equal monthly installments and be deposited in the Government treasury under head 0070-Other Administrative Services-60-Other Services-800-Other Receipts-86-Fees under the Right to Information Act. The Commissioner, MC, Ludhiana shall ensure that this amount of penalty is deducted from the salary of the above said defaulting officials for the month of August and September and deposited in the Treasury under the relevant head.

14. Later on, Sh. Navneet Singh, Building Inspector-cum-APIO has sent his reply stating that respondent was posted at that time as APIO with another APIO Mrs. Rajvir Kaur, Building Inspector who is presently posted at Municipal Corporation, Moga. Therefore, Mrs. Rajvir Kaur, APIO (presently posted at MC, Moga) is as also impleaded

as a necessary respondent-PIO to know the position about her performing her duties under the RTI Act in this case during the period in which she was posted in M.C. Ludhiana.

Contd….P-8

-8-

AC:1681/2016

15. She is hereby issue a show cause notice under Section 20 (1) to explain her position while submitting it to the Commission for consideration. Her case will be heard on the same date.

16. Adjourned to 12.10.2016 (at 11.30 AM) for filling compliance report and further proceedings. Copies of the order be sent to the parties through registered post.

Dated : 12.08.2016 ( S.S. Channy)

Chief Information Commissioner Punjab

Through registered post

CC: 1. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana

2. Sh. Ghanshyam Thori, Addl.Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana

3. Sh. Bhupinder Singh, PIO o/o the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana.

4. Shri Danesh, PIO o/o the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana.

5. Shri Ankit Midha PIO o/o the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana.

6. Shri Navneet Khokhar, Building Inspector-cum-APIO o/o the Municipal Corporation, Ludhaina.

7. Mrs. Rajvir Kaur, Building Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Moga