In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001676
Date of Hearing : July 28, 2011
Date of Decision : July 28, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Sanjay Verma
H.No. 88, Krishankunj Colony
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi - 110 092.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Public Works Department
(AllotmentII Branch), B Wing
5th floor, Delhi Sectt. I.P Estate
New Delhi.
Represented by : Shri K S Bhoria
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001676
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated Nil was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Public Works Department
seeking information about the number of flats type IV & V allotted to employees location wise as also the
number of such flats which are vacant for allotment. He also sought the number of applications received for
allotment or in waiting for type IV & V accommodation,. The PIO replied on 11.2.11 pointwise while asking the
Applicant to deposit additional fee. The Applicant filed his first appeal stating that he had deposited Rs 450/
but the copies have not been provided to him. The Appellate Authority requested the Appellant to provide
proof of having deposited Rs 450/. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his second appeal
before the Commission stating that he has been denied information.
Decision.
2. The Respondent during the hearing stated that after depositing the additional fees that Appellant had
not furnished them with the challan because of which the PIO was not aware of whether the payment
had been made or not. However, having received the receipt of the copy of the Challan which was
submitted along with the first appeal the Appellant was requested to provide the original challan.
He further added that meanwhile the PIO also checked with the concerned authorities and having
noted that the amount has indeed been deposited provided the information to the Appellant on
21.7.11, without waiting for the original challan. The Appellant admitted to having received the
information a couple of days before the date of hearing.
3. During the hearing the Applicant complained about the behavior of the PIO and also the
harassment he had to face because of the non cooperative attitude of the PIO when he had approached the
PIO for the correct information about where the additional fees had to be deposited etc. taking cognizance
of the Appellant’s complaint, the Commission u/s18(2) of the RTI Act directs the Appellate Authority to enquire
into this matter and to share the enquiry report with the Appellant, under intimation to the Commission. It is
also recommended that if the PIO is found guilty appropriate disciplinary action be taken against him. The
Appellant may be kept informed about the action taken.
4. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri Sanjay Verma
H.No. 88, Krishankunj Colony
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi – 110 092.
2. ThePublic Works Department
(AllotmentII Branch), B Wing
5th floor, Delhi Sectt. I.P Estate
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
(AllotmentII Branch), B Wing
5th floor, Delhi Sectt. I.P Estate
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
.
In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding
the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.