Sanjay Yadav v. Sachin Sapra

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5432/2011 & CM APPL. 11070/2011 SANJAY YADAV ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms.

Prerna Tandon, Mr. Darshnik Narang and Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advocates.

versus SACHIN SAPRA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rohan Thawani and Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 15.03.2024 1.

The Petitioner, who is a CPIO of MCD, has approached this Court challenging the Order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Ld. Central Information Commission (CIC) imposing a penalty of Rs.250 per day i.e., Rs.25,000 which is the maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for delay in supplying the information sought by the Respondent. 2.

The Respondent herein had filed an application under RTI seeking the following information:

"1) What demolition action has been taken by the MCD against the unauthorized property no. C-1, D-10 and C-10 Rajouri Garden?

2) MCD's Demolition action on the properties is based on which of the following plan/document:- a) Original sanctioned Building plan of the property or b) Regularized Building plan of the property,

3) Point out/enumerate for which property are the basis/yardsticks for taking action?

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4) For properties, which have no plans on what basis/yardsticks MCD is taking action/intends to take action?

5) Provide date of sealing orders of property no. A2/39, also provide the file no, sealing order, points sealed?

6) provide the building plan on the basis of which owners of property no.A-2/39 are carrying out fresh construction?

Is MCD aware of it if yes then what action is taken on such construction?

Also provide the information about whether the fresh construction can be allowed in the building u/s 345-A which is already sealed?

7) Property No. H-2 a) provide the copy of deviation booking file of above property. Whether deviation booking was done at the ongoing stage?

b) provide the detail of sealing demolition action taken by the MCD against the same Property?

c) provide the copy of the undertaking if any filed by owner of the said property to carry out selfdemolition? d) provide the location of the set backs in the property with their length from plot boundaries?

e) whether non-compoundable deviations still exist in the building at Plot No. H 2. provide the details of the same.

8) are restaurants and tyre repair shop allowed on mixed land use streets under MPD-2021? If yes, point out the MPD-2021 clause. If no, then why 2 restaurants at property no.'s A-2/132(Deez biryani) and J-I2/38(Pizza hut) and wheel The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

alignment/balancing shops at J-19(BJS TYRE SPECIALIST) and J-9/18C(KIRAT CAR) are operating.

What steps MCD has taken for the closure of such shops?

9) provide the sanctioned building plan for the following properties on whose basis the construction is going on:- a) H-2 Rajouri Garden b) F-13 Rajouri Garden c) C-7 Rajouri Garden d) C-4 Rajouri Garden"

3.

The information sought at serial Nos.1 to 8 was provided to the Respondent, however, there was a delay in supplying information sought at serial No.9. Reasoning given by the Ld. CIC for imposing the penalty of Rs.250 per day, subject to a maximum ceiling limit of Rs.25,000/- reads as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

A perusal of the above, indicates that the maximum penalty has been The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

imposed only because of the delay for which probably there was no justification. Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 which deals with power of CIC to impose penalties reads as under:

"20. Penalties.

-(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 fumishing 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 twentyfive 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.

(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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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."

5.

A reading of Section 20 of the RTI Act shows that it is not necessary for the CIC to impose the maximum penalty of Rs.250 for each day's delay. The delay should be attributed to malafides or the fact that there is no just cause at all or there is a complete absence of cause for delay. 6.

This Court in Mujibur Rehman v. Central Information Commission, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1149, has observed as under: "10. A close and textual reading of Section 20 itself reveals that there are three circumstances, whereby a penalty can be imposed i.e.

(a) Refusal to receive an application for information; (b) Not furnishing information within the time specified; and (c) Denying mala fidely the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information for destroying information that was the subject matter of the request.

Each of the conditions is prefaced by the infraction "without reasonable cause". The CIC in its second The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

impugned order dated 29.5.2006 clearly recorded that the 6th respondent did not furnish any reasonable cause for the delay and that this fact stood "established". It desisted from imposing the penalty which it was undoubtedly competent to under Section 20(1). It, however, recommended that action should be taken against the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. the sixth respondent under Section 20(2). That part of the order is not in dispute."

7.

The facts of the case reveal that the information to query No.9 had to be sought from another Department which has resulted in delay in providing the information and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was personally interested in delaying the matter. In any event, more than 11 years have passed and the Petitioner has suffered enough by the pendency of the present writ petition for the last 11 years. 8.

In the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the Ld. CIC on the Petitioner, is to be set aside. Resultantly, the Impugned Order dated 17.06.2011 is set aside. 9.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MARCH 15, 2024 S. Zakir The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.