RTI Judgement Series
RTI Judgement Series: Five officers of MCD issued show-cause for giving false information

Five officers of MCD stated there was nothing unauthorized or illegal about the temple. This was contradictory to replies given by two PIOs, which said the temple was unauthorized construction on public land. This is the 133rd in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, issued a show-cause notice to five deemed Public Information Officers (PIOs) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), including an assistant commissioner, after finding them guilty of knowingly supplying false information.


While giving this judgement on 10 June 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “Two PIOs earlier stated that the temple was an encroachment. However, five officers after an inspection appear to have colluded in stating that there was nothing unauthorized or illegal. This appears to be the corrupt collusion which must be very strictly dealt with.”


New Delhi resident Dilip Kumar (Chavanni), on 1 April 2008, sought information about illegal encroachment by Manushi Sangthan from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Office of the Superintending Engineer-I at MCD. He has also asked for certified copy of the record and name and designation of the officer who has acted upon the complaint of illegal encroachment by Manushi Sangathan by making toilets and a temple. Here is the information he sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the reply given by the PIO...


1. Give the details of encroachments from Sewa Nagar Railway station to Hanuman Mandir, which has been recorded but has not been removed.  

PIO's Reply: An encroachment has been done by a temple in a row of road from Sewa Nagar Railway Crossing to Hanuman Mandir.


2. Is there any details in the record of year 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007?

PIO's Reply: As above.


3. Is the model of Narayani Devi Temple in your record? 

PIO's Reply: As above.


4. Give the certified copy of all the orders and action taken by MCD to remove this illegal encroachment.   

PIO's Reply: In this regard a letter has been sent to Manushi Sangthan to take necessary action for removing this illegal construction.


5. Is the office of Manushi Sangthan, which has been built along with Mahbub Stall, in your record?       

PIO's Reply: No such information is available in this office.


6. Give the certified copy of order to remove this office by MCD.        

PIO's Reply: As above.


7. Is the toilet, made by Manushi Sangthan in your record of illegal encroachment? Give the copy of the record for removing this by MCD.    

PIO's Reply: This is related to Licensing Department, Central Zone.


8. Give the name of the department and officer who are responsible for searching and removing of encroachment. 

PIO's Reply: Regional Sub./Assistant Engineer (Building) and Licensing Inspector are responsible for removing encroachment.


9. Give the name and the designation of those officers of MCD who were responsible for removing illegal encroachment from the site of Sewa Nagar Pilot Project from 2005 to till date.    

PIO's Reply: Regional Sub./Assistant Engineer (Building) and Licensing Inspector are responsible for removing encroachment.


Since the PIO did not furnish information regarding action taken by MCD against the encroachment by Manushi Sangthan, the appellant Dilip Kumar filed his first appeal.


In his order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) said, “The related PIO is directed to give information to the appellant about necessary action after inspection of the related site within 30 days from issuing of this order.”


After not receiving proper information, Dilip Kumar approached the CIC with his second appeal.


During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that initially the PIO had stated in his reply  under query no1 that the temple was an encroachment. Following directions from the FAA, an inspection was done and the information was sent to Dilip Kumar, the appellant on 19 January 2009. This was signed by five officials, licensing inspector Shishupal, junior engineer Ravi Kumar, assistant engineer NS Meena, executive engineer AK Singh and assistant commissioner RK Parashar. This information stated that the temple (Manushi Shagthan's office) and toilet were part of the Manushi Project and were approved.


The appellant, Dilip Kumar, produced a copy of the letter given to him under RTI dated 5 July 2007 signed by the zonal engineer (W-III) which stated that the temple was an unauthorized construction on public land directing that it should be removed.


Mr Gandhi said, “It is evident that contradictory statements have been made regarding certain structures. On 5 July 2007, the temple was stated to be unauthorized, on 1 May 2008 the PIO also stated that the temple was unauthorized and on 19 January 2009 five officers, after an inspection, appear to have colluded in stating that there was nothing unauthorized or illegal.”


“Unless there are any developments, which have not been shown before the Commission, this appears to be the corrupt collusion which must be very strictly dealt with. The Commission charges these five officers the collusion in giving false information to the appellant,” the CIC said.


Mr Gandhi, in his order, said, “There are other implications and the additional commissioner (engineering) is directed to enquire into this and send a report to the appellant and the Commission before 30 June 2009. This report will also state the action taken against responsible officers, if wrong doing is discovered.”


While allowing the appeal, the CIC directed the PIO to give a copy of the lay out plan of the road with the details of the project structures to the appellant before 20 June 2009.


From the facts, the Commission felt it was apparent that the five deemed PIOs guilty of knowingly furnishing false information, which attracts penal provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. Mr Gandhi then issued a show-cause notice to all the five officers and directed them to give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them. 




Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000906/3636


Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000906


Appellant                                            : Dilip Kumar (Chavanni)

                                                                 New Delhi-3


Respondent                                    : Naveen Verma

                                                            Public Information Officer

                                                            Municipal Corporation Of Delhi,

                                                            Office of the Suptd. Engineer-I,

                                                            Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,

                                                            New Delhi-110024


RBI fines 22 banks for violating KYC/anti-money laundering norms

RBI has also issued cautionary letters to Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank, Barclays Bank, BNP Paribas, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi and State Bank of Patiala

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday imposed fines totalling Rs49.5 crore on 22 private and public sector banks including SBI, PNB and Yes Bank for violating KYC/anti-money laundering norms.


It also gave cautionary letters to seven including Citibank and StanChart following an exposé made by an online portal.


“After considering the facts of each case... Reserve Bank came to conclusion that some of the violations were substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty...” the central bank said in a statement.


A penalty of Rs3 crore each has been imposed on State Bank of India (SBI), Bank of India, Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank and Federal Bank.


United Bank of India, Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Punjab National Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank and Andhra Bank were slapped a penalty of Rs2.5 crore each.


A penalty of Rs2 crore each was imposed on Yes Bank, Vijaya Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Dhanlaxmi Bank. The other banks which were penalised by the RBI include Deutsche Bank, Development Credit Bank, ING Vysya Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ratnakar Bank.


Besides, RBI has issued cautionary letters to Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank, Barclays Bank, BNP Paribas, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi and State Bank of Patiala.


Following probe into charges levelled by an online portal Cobrapost, RBI has earlier imposed fines totalling Rs10.5 crore on top three private lenders—Axis Bank, HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank.


Although the investigation did not reveal any prima facie evidence of money laundering, RBI said that “any conclusive inference in this regard can be drawn only by an end-to-end investigation of the transactions by tax and enforcement agencies”.



Anil Girotra

4 years ago

No one can dispute that the banks are required to follow the KYC norms and to follow anti money laundering guidelines.The present penalty imposed on 22 banks to rthe tune of Rs 49.5 crores is a result of RBI enquiry after cobra post brought out with secret camera that banks were generally willing to open accounts violating guidelines.having been a banker myself I can understand the anxiety of bank managers or sales force in trying to garner accounts(deposits)to meet the targets.Of late after the banks have started working as agent/distributors for insurance products they have been taking insurance business and as it came out from Cobra expose were prepared to violate the KYC/AML guidelines.I must hasten to add that Cobrapost actually did not get any account opened or banks actually violating any guidelines.The cobra expose was limited to the discussion of bank sales force intent to open accounts without following rules.i would only say at this stage that banks would have done a little more due dilligence once the accountb was actually opened.
RBI penalty imposeed obviously gives a feeling that there were grave violations of AML and KYC by these banks.whether the banks internal systems were not able to forewarn these banks of the violations.There are internal /external audits and even annual RBI inspection.I think this is indeed a wake up for the banks/regulators to tighten the systems .May be some kind o0f half yearly review which the banks are supposed to do for KYC/AML and if they dont it should be introduced.There is a need to tighten this area.Of course the Government should also look at the big picture and take measures to remove black money rfrom the system


4 years ago

As service conditions of the inside staff do not permit to reveal such irregularities to none other than his immediate boss, who is main villain, in flouting the rules and used to not reporting his subordinate's apprehensions to his higher-ups.it goes on unchecked in the system.

Even whistle blower scheme is not permitting insider's observations of violations on policy matters.

ashwin bahl

4 years ago

Too little and too late.. and what about accountability ? who is responsible for this ??

WPI inflation rises to 4.86% in June against 4.7% in May

As per official data, WPI inflation in the food articles category rose to 9.74%, driven mainly by price rise in onion, cereals and rice

Inflation based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) had stood at 4.70% in May. In June, 2012, it was 7.58%.


As per official data released today, WPI inflation in the food articles category rose to 9.74%, driven mainly by price rise in onion, cereals and rice.


The rate of price rise in food articles, which has a 14.34% share in the WPI basket, was 8.25% in May.


Inflation in onion shot up by 114% in June, from 97.40% in the previous month.


Vegetables prices too went up by 16.47% during the month, from 4.85% in May. It was (-)9.05% in April.


Inflation in the manufactured items category, however, declined to 2.75% in June from 3.11% in May.


The non-food articles category, which includes fibre, oilseeds and minerals, saw a sharp rise in inflation to 7.57%, from 4.88% in May.


Inflation for April was revised downwards to 4.77% from 4.89% as per provisional estimates.


The inflation data would be closely watched by the Reserve Bank of India while formulating its first-quarter policy scheduled for 30 July.


There have been demands for lowering interest rate in the backdrop of declining inflation.


While the RBI has lowered interest rates by 1.30% since January 2012, banks have cut lending rates by only 0.30%.


The data showed inflation in the eggs, meat and fish category at 12.23% during June as compared to 11.21% in the previous month.


Inflation in cereals and rice was high at 17.18% and 19.11%, against 16.01% and 18.48%, respectively, in May.


Potatoes, however, saw decline in rate of price rise to (-)14.22%, from (-)3.44% in May. Pulses too declined sharply to 1.59% during June, from 5.95% in May.


For the fuel and power category, it was lower at 7.12% in June as compared to 7.32% in the previous month.


Data released last week showed retail inflation inching up to 9.87% in June, from 9.31% in the previous month, on costlier vegetables and food items.


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)