Central Information Commission Judgements

Manish Bhardwaj vs Mcd, Shahdra (South Zone) on 8 October, 2008

Central Information Commission
Manish Bhardwaj vs Mcd, Shahdra (South Zone) on 8 October, 2008
                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                              Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
                                     Tel: 91 11 26161796

                        Decision No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01596/SG/00019
                           Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01596
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

-
Appellant             Manish Bhardwaj
                      X-7, Shivaji Gali
                      Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031

Respondent            P R Sethi
                      DC & PIO
                      MCD, Shahdra (South Zone)
                      Vishwas Nagar
                      New Delhi - 110032

RTI filed on :                       23.8.07
PIO Reply       :                    24.9.07
First Appeal filed on :              8.10.07
First Appellate Authority Order :    24.10.07
Second Appeal filed on       :       27.12.07

The appellant had sought details and copy of sanctioned plan of house no. 108 and 109,
Vigyan Lokdal Delhi 92 and old and new building bye laws and rules for plot measuring 240,
240+240 and 480 sq.yds. The appellant filed a first appeal since he felt complete information
had not been provided. The Appellate authority in his order agreed with the appellant’s
contention and ordered to give ‘complete question specific reply to the appellant within 7
days.’
The information was not provided by the PIO, hence the second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Manish Bhardwaj
Respondent: Mr. Naurangi Lal on behalf of Mr. Ranbir Singh, Suptd. Enginner and PIO

The appellant has given a letter stating that he has received the information and wishes to
withdraw the appeal. Questioning the appellant’s and respondents, it appears that neither side
is willing to disclose the truth about what has happened. The respondents are claiming
different dates of sending the information and the appellant also does not appear to have any
consistence in his statements.

Decision:

The Appeal is disallowed.

This decision is announced in open chamber. .
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Shailesh Gandhi)
Information Commissioner
Date: 8 October, 2008