CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000638/12398Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000638
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rajender Gupta
704, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi- 32
Mb. No. – 9810713674
Respondent (1) : Mr. V. K. Bhatia,
PIO & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Superintending Engineer-II
Shahdara North Zone, Keshav Chowk,
Shahdara, Delhi
(2) Mr. D. P. Ture
FAA & Dy. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara North Zone, Keshav Chowk,
Shahdara, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2010
PIO replied : 11/01/2011
First appeal filed on : 03/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Information sought:-
1) Provide the information about the green line established next to the school wall. When was it
made?
2) Whether the green line was removed from MCD or it has been stolen?
3) Whether the report regarding the same has been registered by MCD? Provide the photocopy of
the same.
4) What step has been taken by MCD against the illegal activities for the same.
5) Which department of the Delhi municipal corporation is responsible for the same. Provide the
information.
6) Provide the name, designation, mobile no. of the responsible person in the department for the
removal, theft and disappear of the same.
7) Whether any complaint regarding the same has been made by any officer, worker or by native.
Provide the photocopy for the same.
PIO Reply:-
The appellant was provide the point wise solution to his query:-
1) In view to point 1:- the information is not available for the same because it is not concerned
with the department
The reply was same for the all queries asked by the appellant.
First Appeal:-
Reply was unsatisfactory.
Page 1 of 3
Ground of the First Appeal:
The appellant was provided with false and unsatisfactory reply.
Order of the FAA:
Not Ordered
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 16 May 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajender Gupta;
Respondent: Absent;
“The appellant shows that he received an order from the FAA on 29/04/2011 in which it is
stated that, “specific reply has not been provided to the appellant. The said matter of the RTI
application pertains to EE(M-III), DDH, EE(Project-I) the same should be transferred to the
concerned PIO. They will provide the information within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of
this letter.” The Appellant states that after the order of the FAA he received a reply from Dy. Director
(Horticulture) Shahdara North that the matter does not pertain to his department on 05/05/2011.
It appears that EE(M-III) and EE(Project-I) has not provided any information to the Appellant. The
Appellant had filed the first appeal on 03/02/2011 but the FAA Mr. D. P. Ture heard the matter only
on 19/04/2011 and passed an order on 29/04/2011. It thus appears that the FAA did not discharge his
duty under the RTI Act within the time mandated in the RTI Act. The Commission directs FAA Mr.
Ture to explain and showcause why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action
against him for not doing his duty as per the provisions of RTI Act. The Commission also directs Mr.
Ture to ensure that whoever has the information sends it to the Appellant before 05 June 2011.”
Decision dated 16 May 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs Mr. D. P. Ture to ensure that the information is sent to the Appellant
before 05 June 20110.
The Commission also directs Mr. D. P. Ture to present himself before the Commission 13 June 2011
at 04.00PM with his written submission to showcause why disciplinary actions should not be
recommended against him for not doing his duty as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Mr. D. P. Ture will also identify the officers responsible for the delay in providing the information to
the Appellant. He will direct the responsible officers to appear before the Commission alongwith him
on 13 June 2011 at 04.00PM.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 13 June 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajender Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. D. P. Ture, First Appellate Authority; Mr. V. K. Bhatia, PIO & SE-II; Mr. Rajpal
Singh, EE(M-III) & Deemed PIO; Mr. Piar Singh, EE(Project-I) & Deemed PIO and Mr. R. S. Bharti,
AE(M-III);
Mr. D. P. Ture, First Appellate Authority & Dy. Commissioner (Shahdara North) the reasons for delay
in giving First Appellate order. The Appellant has filed the first appeal on 03/02/2011 and he should
have given an order before 05/03/2011. Instead he passed an order only on 29/04/2011. He states that
the appeals are in the custody of his Steno who was transferred on 22/03/2011 suddenly. He also states
that there was a pendency of 200 appeals left by his predecessor. The Commission warns Mr. Ture to
ensure that proper orders are passed within 30 days.
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Piar Singh, EE(Project-I) states that he had not received the RTI application and that the order of
the FAA reached him on 05/05/2011. He did not receive the RTI application with the FAA’s order and
therefore he obtained the RTI application and replied on 27/05/2011 that he did not have any records.
Mr. Rajpal Singh states that he provided the information on 01/06/2011. The net result is that the
information sought by the Appellant is not available with any of the PIOs and the RTI application has
now been transferred to Dy. Director Education (North East), Yamuna Vihar. The Appellant shows
that Dy. Director Education has also stated that the information does not pertain to them. From the
evidence before the Commission it appears that it is not possible to decide who has the information
sought by the Appellant.
Adjunct Decision:
In view of this the Commission closes this case and drops the proceedings in 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
13 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SK)
Page 3 of 3