CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001396/13399
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001396
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Pushpender,
B-2/213, Sector-17,
Rohini, Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. M. P. Gupta
Public Information Officer & SE-II
O/o Superintendent Engineer (II),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Engineering Department,
Rohini Zone, Sector-5, Rohini,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 24/11/2010
PIO replied : no reply.
First appeal filed on : 08/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 11/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/05/2011
Information sought by the appellant:
1) When an approval plan is being prepared and there are a certain deficiencies in the file of the
applicant then a letter is sent to the applicant indicating those deficiencies. How many copies are
prepared of the same? So that one can be sent to the applicant and the others are appended to the file
only.
2) How many such objection-letters are kept in the file?
3) When the map of a flat is being rejected, how many copies are prepared of the same so that one can
be sent to the applicant and the others are kept in the file.
4) How many such rejection-letters are kept in file?
5) Why the letter no. 32/AE/B-1/RZ/09 dated 24/06/2009 was not released by the Superintendent
Engineer?
6) Why the letter no. 42/AE/B-1/RZ/09 dated 24/06/2009 was not released by the Superintendent
Engineer?
7) The designation of the record-keeper pertains to the officer/ worker of which category (A or B or C
or D)?
8) What is the grade-pay and the salary of the record-keeper (Building Department)?
9) Does the record-keeper (Building)-II have a seal of his own so that after signing, he could put a seal
on it?
10) Whether the letter no. 42/AE-I/B-II dated 13/07/2009 is sent to the applicant through speed-post or
U.P.C.?
11) If the letter was sent via U.P.C., why it was not sent via. Speed Post? As the same was an
important document.
12) Kindly provide a certified copy of the diary no. 12553/SE-III/RZ dated 25/08/2009.
13) Kindly provide the certified copies of all the dispatch registers maintained in the O/o
Superintendent Engineer (Building) II, Rohini Zone during 01/01/2008 to 23/11/2010.
14) Kindly provide the certified copies of all the diary registers maintained in the O/o Superintendent
Engineer (Building) II, Rohini Zone during 01/01/2008 to 23/11/2010.
15) Kindly provide the certified copies of all the diary registers maintained in the O/o Superintendent
Engineer- II, Rohini Zone during 01/01/2008 to 23/11/2010.
Kindly provide the following information with respect to the officials working on the diary no.
11858/ S.E.-II/ RZ dated 24/07/2009:
16) This application reached to which all officials on all what dates? What are the names and
designations of such officials?
17) This application remained with which all officials and for what respective durations?
18) During this period, what all actions were taken by which all officials?
19) Why no reply was given for this application?
20) For all those who have failed to perform their duties; on which all officials, under what rules,
what actions, on what all designation, by what date shall be taken?
Reply of the PIO:
No reply.
Ground of the First Appeal:
No reply within the mandated time limit viz. 30 days from the filing of the RTI application.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO is directed to furnish the reply to the RTI application within 12 days. Appeal closed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been obtained till date.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Golani, Office-in-Charge and Mr. S. R. Meena, EE on behalf of Mr. M. P.
Gupta, PIO & SE-II;
The respondent claims that he had sent the information to the Appellant on 12/01/2011 vide speed
post no. ED227939715IN, which he has produced before the Commission. He states that at the First
Appellate hearing Mr. S. R. Meena EE(B-II) was present did not inform the FAA about this since he
had not bothered to check the facts when he went for the First Appellate hearing. The respondent also
states that he has sent the information again to the Appellant after the order of the FAA on 26/02/2011
by speed post no. ED492525303IN.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been provided.
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
12 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SB)