CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003631/11287
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003631
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vishal Narula
R/O-13/86, Old Talwandi Road,
Zira, District-Ferozpur
Punjab-142047
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena
Public Information Officer & SE-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o the SE-II
West Zone, Vishal Enclave,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 09/09/2010
PIO replied : 21/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 08/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 10/12/2010
Second Appeal received on : 23/12/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on : 04/01/2011
Hearing held on : 04/02/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Provide reasons as to why S.E.-2, M.C.D , W.Z did not The order has been complied with
follow the instructions given by deputy commissioner i.e,
PIO is directed to redress the grievances of the appellant to
remove the unauthorized construction.
2. Provide reasons as why the above order was not complied by The order has been complied with
S.E.-2.
3. Provide copy of the circular no. 240/EE-2(Bldg)Hq/2010 Does not pertain to building
dated 04/06/2010 department west zone.
First Appeal:
Incomplete, unsatisfactory reply of query no. 1& 2 and wrong information as per query no. 3
Order of the FAA:
“Photocopies of the files available with the department has been provided to the appellant and affidavit
has also been given to him, appellant has some grievances and S.E-2/Ex. En.(B)-2 is asked to get the same
redressed by taking action in the manner.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incorrect information given by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Vishal Narula;
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
The PIO has provided information on query-3 that the Circular no. 240/EE-2(Bldg)Hq/2010 dated
04/06/2010 was not available with the building department. The Appellant shows that this is actually
minutes of meeting which has been received at the office of the Superintending Engineer-II on 11/06/2010
by diary no. 3376. He therefore contends that false information was given to him. The Appellant has a
copy of this circular and hence he does not want this information any longer.
The PIO states that the Appellant had sought a circular and not minutes of the meeting. Hence he claims
that they would have look at the files relating to the circulars and not the files relating to the minutes of
meetings. He therefore claims that false information was not given knowing and that the respondent can
not be faulted. The Commission accepts this explanation.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
04 February 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)