CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01531/SG/1544
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01531/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ram Niwas
K II / 604, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi – 110062
Respondent : Ganesh Bharty
Dy. Commissioner (Central Zone) & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi – 110024
: Naresh Kumar,
Additional Commissioner (Engineer) & FAA,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, New Delhi – 110006
RTI Application : 07/08/2007
PIO Reply : no reply.
First appeal : 10/09/2007 First Appellate Authority order : 08/10/2007
Appellant had filed application asking information in relation to Central Establishment
Department of MCD.
The PIO did not reply. Hence the appellant filed a first appeal. The First Appellate
Authority ordered the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant within 10 days. During
the hearing the appellant refused to take to information as it was not signed by the authority.
After that the information was not provided to the appellant. Hence the appellant filed a
second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 7 October 2008:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mrs. Joginder Taluja representing PIO Mr. Ganesh Bharty
Respondents claim that the information was given to the appellant on 10/09/2007, and that
the information was again provided on 16/10/2007 as per the instructions of the First
appellate Authority.
Interim Decision:
The Commission is directing the first appellate authority, to investigate the matte and
submit a report to the Commission by 21st October 2008.
The following are the discrepancies which need to be looked at:
1. The PIO claims that the information was sent on 10/9/2007 as per papers produced
before me. However the Appellate authority’s order of 16/10/2007 makes no mention
of this.
2. The PIO is showing papers claiming that they had sent the information again on
16/10/2007 on the orders of the Appellate Authority. The appellant has not
acknowledged receiving either the papers sent on 10/9/2007 or 16/10/2007.
The Appellate authority will verify whether there is proof that both the claims are correct and
send a report to the Commission. The Commission will give its final order after that.
Final Decision on 9 February 2009.
The Additional Commissioner -Engineering has submitted a report after verifying the records
that the information had been sent to the appellant on 10/9/2007 (UPC no. 1778) and again on
18/10/2007 (UPC no. 1811).
In view of this it appears that the information has been sent to the appellant.
The Appeal is disposed.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
9 February 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)