CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001732/13930
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001732
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.C. Sharma
General Secretary,
Residents Welfare Association (Regd)
Block B-4(Regn.) No. S- 49258,
Registered Office: B- 4/43,
Phase- II, Ashok Vihar,
New Delhi- 110052
Respondent (1) : Mr. S.P. Singh
PIO & Dy. Director (Horticulture)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Horticulture Department,
MCD Zonal Office, Rohini Zone, Sector- 5,
Rohini, New Delhi
Respondent (2) : Public Information Officer,
Superintending Engineer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Rohini Zone- I, Sector- 5,
New Delhi
Respondent (3) : Public Information Officer & EE(E)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Executive Engineer (Electricity)
MCD, Rohini Zone, Sector- 5,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 17/03/2011
PIO replied : 11/04/2011, 27/04/2011
First Appeal filed on : 19/04/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 26/05/2011
Second Appeal received on : 29/06/2011
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. What actions has been with respect to the beautification plan The work for the footpath, walls
taken with respect to the park, situated at Bijli Ghar Wala and for the repairing of the park is
Park, Ashok Vihar, Phase 2, block B-4, vide letter dated the work of the building
26/04/10, issued by the Horticulture Department, to the department. The information
concerned officer of the Engineering and Works Department, regarding the person had been
Rohini Zone, New Delhi and which was also mentioned in the given the tender can be given by
Appellant’s letter dated 29/12/2010, that new gates have to be the building department and the
installed in the said park, so that it may prevent the entry of tender has been given to Mr.
animals into the park? No action has been taken so far in this Vishal Vadera whose work order
Page 1 of 3
regard. The contract given to the Contractor Mr. Vishal was from 24/03/2011.
Vadhera, why is he not working according to the Contract
offered to him? Also, as mentioned in Appellant’s letter. What
was the amount offered to Mr. Vishal Vadhera for the contract,
and the contract was for which work, and when the contract
was given to him? The MCD has not given any reply to the
Appellant’s letter, and not taken any action so far.
2. As the Appellant have mentioned in his letter dated The construction work of the gate
04/02/2009, that the walking footpath should be constructed in of the park, of the footpath is given
the park in all sides as the existing 20 years old footpath is in a by the building department. The
very dilapidated condition, and due to this several people have work for the gardening of the park
fallen down and suffered injuries. What action has been taken is with the gardening department.
in this regard? Also as mentioned in the letter, the plantations
and floor should be installed in the park so that the park look
may become more beautiful, and water connections should be
provided in the park and electricity be also provided in the
park as there is darkness in the park. But no action has been
taken so far, why so? Who was given the contract for doing all
this work, as ornamental development of the said park was
ordered on 31/08/2010?
3. The boundary wall was requested to be extended as referred in It is related to building department
Appellant’s letter, but no action taken so far, why so?
4. Pacci Chhatri and foundation, water pumps, lighting were also Pacci Chhatri and foundation work
called upon to be provided in the park as per the Appellant’s is with the building department.
letter, but no action has been taken so far, why so? There is no need of tube wells in
the park; there is system of water
in the park. The work of the
lightening of the park is with the
power department.
5. What action has been taken with respect to the Appellant’s It is related to the power
letter dated 29/12/2010 in which he had mentioned that High department.
Mast light was an urgent need of the park, and there is always
the risk of robbery, etc. in the park. Therefore the Appellant
had requested in his letter to provide High Mast light in the
park, but so far ho action seems to have taken place, why so?
6. As the Appellant had referred in his letter that due to rats the The progress work of the park will
park is filled with holes and cracks, and it was requested to fill commence soon and that will fill
the holes and cracks with mud, but no action has been taken so the holes and cracks created by
far, why so? rats.
7. The Appellant had requested in his letter that a Gardner be The park is not fully developed so
provided for the proper maintenance of the park, but so far the as per the requirement staffs are
Gardner has not provided, why so? sent for cleaning of the park. After
the park is fully developed a
gardener will be appointed.
8. No claiming work of the park is being done, as cows and The park is cleaned on a regular
domestic animals usually visit the park and do excretion over basis and because the park gate is
there, and also dirty overgrown grass is observed all over the broken, animals enter the park and
park, why so? for the repairing of the same, the
building department has been sent
letters.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant was not provided with any reply.
Page 2 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA directed the PIO/SE (RH-I) and Ex. Engineer (Electricity) to furnish the reply to the reply to the
Appellant within three weeks and reply given by the horticulture department was also enclosed with the
order and closed the appeal.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant wants the complete information from the concerned department.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R.C. Sharma;
Respondent (1): Mr. S.P. Singh, PIO & Dy. Director (Horticulture);
The Appellant states that he has not received any information from PIO/SE(RH-I) and
EE(Electrical) despite the order of the FAA on 26/05/2011 which directed them to provide the
information within 03 weeks.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO/SE(RH-I) to provide the information on query 1, 2,
3 & 4 and PIO/EE(Electrical) to provide the information on query-5 to the Appellant
before 30 August 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO/SE-I and EE(Electrical) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section
20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
PIO/SE-I and Executive Engineer (Electrical) will present themselves before the Commission at the
above address on 05 September 2011 at 03.30PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause
why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the
information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of
having sent the information to the appellant.
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
08 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (NS)
Page 3 of 3