CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002245/5330Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002245
Appellant : Mr. Dipendra,
WZ 435-A, Nangal Rai,
New Delhi-110046
Respondent : Mr. V.R. Bansal
Public Information officer & SE-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi 110027
Mr. Dalip Singh
Asst. Commissioner, West Zone
School Building Vishal Enclave
Rajouri Garden New Delhi 110027
Mr. Madan Mohan
AA & C
o/o Asst. Commissioner, West Zone
School Building Vishal Enclave
Rajouri Garden New Delhi 110027
RTI application filed on : 22/04/2009
PIO replied : 13/05/2009
First Appeal filed on : 25/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 10/06/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 03/09/2009
Information sought:
Appellant sought information about what action had been taken on his Complaint filed on
15/04/2009 vide Complaint no.-743. By law, what time should be taken in confirming this
information to the Appellant and which officials are responsible for delay and what action can be
taken against them and what action had been taken against the departmental officials in the
condition of not following time limit.
PIO's Reply:
Information regarding action taken on the complaint had not been given to Regional Control
Room by the Central Control Room of the West Zone. Further information relating action taken
so far on the complaint was not relating to West Zone.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply.
Page 1 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that the PIO had given the available information regarding forwarding the
complaint to the Control Room of the West Zone. Further information relating action taken so far
on the complaint has to be given by the concerned department of the West Zone. The PIO/ADC
(HQ) was directed to immediately forward the application of the Appellant to the concerned PIO
in West Zone to provide the required information to the Appellant directly within 07 days of the
receipt of Application.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Not satisfactory reply.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dipendra;
Respondent: Mr. V.R.Bansal, Public Information officer & SE-I; Mr. P.R.Meena, EE(B-I);
The Appellant had booked a complaint about unauthorized construction on 15/04/2009 with the
Central Control Room(CCR). The CCR had informed his that Mr. Yogesh Sharma of in the CCR
of West Zone was informed about this on the same day. The PIO claims that he was informed
about this complaint on 23/04/2009. The PIO is directed to explain the movement of the
complaint from 15/04/200 to 23/04/2009. The PIO is also directed to inform the Appellant
whether there is any time limit for taking action on the complaint and names of the officers who
were supposed to take action.
The Appellate Authority had ordered that the information for queries 2 & 3 should be obtained
form West Zone on 19/06/2009. The PIO of West Zone states that he transferred the RTI
application on 30/09/2009 to the PIO, SE-I. This means that for nearly three months the RTI
application after the order of the FAA was lying with the PIO of Assistant Commissioner, West
Zone. Mr. V.R.Bansal states that during this period the Assistant Commissioners were Mr.
Madan Mohan and Mr. Dilip Singh. It appears that the delay of 100 days has occurred because of
the negligence of Mr. Madan Mohan and Mr. Dilip Singh. Mr. V.R.Bansal is directed to trace the
movement of the RTI application from 30/09/2009 until today. Mr. Bansal will give this
information to the Commission till November 2009.
Decision dated 30 October 2009:
The Appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to provide the information on query 2 & 3 to the
Appellant before 15 November 2009.
The Commission issued a show cause notice to deemed PIOs Mr. Madan Mohan and Mr. Dilip
Singh is as they were responsible for not transferring the RTI application as per the order of the
FAA. They further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raised a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. They were directed to give their
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated
under Section 20 (1) before 20 November 2009.
Facts leading to show cause hearing on 29 December 2009:
The Commission received letter dated 06/11/2009 from Mr. Madan Mohan and Mr. Dilip Singh
stating that the relevant documents and the First Appellate Authority’s order was sent to the Mr.
V.R. Bansal’s office on 23/06/2009. A copy of the Dak Book was enclosed. It was further
clarified that a reminder dated 25/09/2009 was received from the Central Control Room (HQ)
which was forwarded to the office of SE I on 30/09/2009.
Page 2 of 3
In light of the submissions made by Mr. Dalip Singh and Mr. Madan Mohan, it appeared that Mr.
V.R. Bansal may have made a false statement during the hearing held before the Commission on
30/10/2009. The Commission therefore scheduled a show cause hearing in this matter on
29/12/2009 at 4.30 p.m. to apportion responsibility between the persons concerned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 29 December 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. VR Bansal, SE (WZ) I; Mr. PR Meena, EE (B) RZ; Mr. Madan Mohan, Dy.
A&C, Rohini; Mr. Dalip Singh, AC
Mr. VR Bansal states that the proof submitted by Mr. Madan Mohan and Mr. Dalip Singh in the
form of the Dak Book did not prove that the First Appellate Authority’s order had in fact been
received by the SE’s office as the marking on the Dak Book does not entirely encircle the last
entry. Mr. Madan Mohan reiterates that the order has been sent to the SE’s office on 23/06/2009
and that the proof submitted establishes the same.
Adjunct decision announced on 29 December 2009:
The Commission is of the view that this matter has to be investigated more closely and therefore
directs the Additional Commissioner to initiate an inquiry in this matter and identify the person/s
responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant after the First Appellate
Authority’s order and the extent of delay for which each person is responsible. The inquiry report
must be submitted to the Commission by 31 January 2010. Based on this inquiry report, the
Commission will take further action on this matter.
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
29 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
CC
Addl. Commissioner (Education)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi Gate
Delhi 110006
Page 3 of 3