STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HARYANA

SCO NO.70-71, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH

COMPLAINT CASE NO.65 of 2016

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-UNDER SECTION 18

Relevant facts emerging from the complaint:

Name of the complainant / Ms. Kiran Makhija, 13, New Colony, Gurgaon.
Name of the Respondent /
  1. State Public Information Officer-cum-Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Infocity C-I, Hero Honda Chowk, Sector-34, Gurgaon.
  2. State Public Information Officer-cum-Senior Assistant O/o District Attorney, HUDA, Sector-6, Panchkula.

RTI-application filed with SPIO on / 28.12.2015
SPIO replied on / 18.2.2016
Date of complaint filed / 17.2.2016
Date of hearing / 4.5.2016
Chief Information Commissioner / Shri Naresh Gulati
Presence / 1. Sh. P.K. Raman, Assistanton behalf of the SPIO-cum-EO, HUDA, Gurgaon in the video conferencing room situated in the Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon.
2. Sh. Hemant Kumar on behalf of the complainant in the Commission.

This complaint has been filed on the ground that the respondent SPIO has not provided the requisite informationwithin the time prescribed under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. She urged that action be taken against the respondent SPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not providing the requisite information by accepting the request as complaint under Section 18 (1) (C) of the RTI Act and order an enquiry. The Commission considered the request and entertained it as a complaint under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act.Accordingly, notice dated 11.3.2016under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act was issued.

2.The representative of the complainant present submitted that partial information has been received after service of Commission’s notice and orders of the FAA. The appellant vide rejoinder dated 4.4.2016 submitted that the SPIO-cum-DA, HUDA, Panchkula vide letter dated 19.1.2016 simply forwarded copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and also forwarded internal mails which has no concern and as such attracted provisions of Section 18(1)(b)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that the respondent SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon has not provided information within one month and requested that action be taken against the respondent SPIO under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act and order an enquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act. He further submitted that the respondent SPIO has responded to the RTI application on 18.2.2016 intimating that the plot file is under process in connection with the implementation of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and as and when it is finalized, he will be intimated. Therefore, the SPIO-cum-EO-II, HUDA, Gurgaon has flouted Section 7(1) and (2) of the Act and attracts provisions of Section 18 (b) & (c) of the Act. He further submitted that he has asked for action taken by HUDA on the judgement in chronological order, date wise on the points. He also submitted that the respondent SPIO has neither provided any information asked for nor has he supplied a copy of the note sheet within the time limit specified under the Act.

3. The SPIO-cum-Estate Officer, HUDA-II, Gurgaon vide comments dated 28.4.2016 submitted that the RTI application dated 28.12.2015 was received on 31.12.2015 and sent to the Assistant dealing Sector 52 on 4.1.2016 with the directions to prepare and supply the requisite information. The required information was supplied to the appellant vide letter dated 18.2.2016. He also submitted that the applicant requested for implementation of High Court order dated 26.9.2015 passed in CWP no. 11043 of 2014. The case is under process and the appellant will be intimated after finalization of the case. He further submitted that there is nominal delay in furnishing the information which is not intentional but occurred due to heavy load of work in the office and whole days public dealings. He further submitted that the concerned official has to attend the court cases pending in the various local courts and High Court etc. and requested that the matter may kindly be disposed of.

3.The Commission has considered the matter carefully and perused the record of the case file.The averments put forth by the representative of the complainantduring the hearing have been noted. The Commission noted that the SPIO-cum-DA, HUDA, Panchkula has furnished copy of the judgement only whereas the complainant has demanded action taken by HUDA in chronological order, date wise on the points ofthe RTI application. The Commission further noted that the respondent SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon has furnished the requisite information to the complainant with delay vide letter dated 18.2.2016 in response to his RTI application dated 28.12.2015 beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. Hence, the respondent SPIO is liable for penal action under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for not providing the requisite information to the complainant within the time prescribed under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act.

4.In view of the above findings the complaint is decided with the directions to issue a showcause notice to the respondent SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-II HUDA, Gurgaon asking him as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for not providing the requisite information to the complainant within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. He is directed to submit a written reply to the show cause notice by 30.5.2016and be personally present during the hearing on 9.6.2016at 11.00 AM through V.C.

Announced. To be communicated.

SD/-

Place : Chandigarh (Naresh Gulati)

Dated : 4.5.2016 Chief Information Commissioner,

Haryana.

1

Comp. no.65 of 2016