Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Chandan Singh vs Delhi Jal Board on 10 September, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Chandan Singh vs Delhi Jal Board on 10 September, 2009
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building (Near Post Office)
                  Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                         Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                             Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001731/4745
                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001731

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Chandan Singh
717-E, Baba Farid Puri,
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi – 110008.

Respondent : Public Information Officer
Delhi Jal Board
O/o the Chief Engineer (West)
Varunalaya, Phase – II,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005.


RTI application filed on           :         09/04/2009
PIO replied                        :         29/04/2009
First appeal filed on              :         08/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order    :         10/06/2009
Second Appeal received on          :         08/07/2009

S. No. Information Sought                     PIO's Reply
1.     Reason for showing status of water     Meter reading was not being taken as
       meter no. 129440 as locked which       premises used to be locked. Hence the
       is the name of Mrs. Kaushilya          status of the meter was shown as locked up.
       Devi.
2.     Reason for not checking water          Meter reading of the water matter in the
       meter on regular basis and if          Appellant's premises was being taken by
       anyone has come to take reading        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (Meter reader). On
       of water meter then name and           22/04/2009 meter reading was taken which
       designation of the concerned           was 556 KL, after demolishing wall of the
       employee.                              same premises.
3.     Whether water is supplied by the       No Answer.
       DJB in house no. 717E, Baba
       Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar.
4.     The reason for which the water bill    According to the DJB rules only minimum
       was sent on the same address even      bill of service charge is sent if water has
       when the water was not being           not been consumed.
       supplied.

5. The provision on the basis of If water is not used then according to the
which water bill is sent even when rule a service charge of Rs.40/- for covered
water was not supplied regularly. area of 200 sq/m is charged and service
charge of Rs120/- for covered area of
maximum to the 200sq/m is charged per
month.

6. Whether only bill will be sent or No answer.

the water will also be supplied. If
any plan was underway then
information related to such plan.

Ground of First Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply received form the PIO.

First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA directed the PIO to send the reply of query no. 3 and 6 within a week and
further directed the department to check and verify the allegations leveled by the
Appellant and to take appropriate measures to ensure supply of drinking water in the
area.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Non-compliance of the FAA order by the PIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mr. Lalit Mohan PIO
The respondent shows that he gave the information on query 3 and 6 on 18/6/2009 and
again on 20/07/2009 since the appellant claimed he had not received the first reply.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
10 September 2009

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)