CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002033/5096
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002033
Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Arya,
R/o F-650, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-110083
Respondent : Mr. V.R.Bansal
Public Information Officer,
Superintending Engineer-I
(West Zone), MCD, Zonal Office
Community Center, Vishal Enclave,
Rajauri Garden, Near Police Station ,
New Delhi-110027
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2009
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First Appeal filed on : 05/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 06/07/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 25/08/2009
Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding complaint filed on 06/02/2009 addressed to Deputy
Commissioner, MCD. Appellant requested for certified copy of documents (including file
noting) on following information:
1. Provide daily progress made on Appellant's complaint mentioned above.
2. Present status of Appellant's complaint including legal action into matter rose therein.
3. Provide the names, designations, phone nos. and other details of the officials who
were supposed to take action on the Complaints.
4. Provide the Acts/rules/regulations/orders/notifications relevant to the complaint
mentioned above and the decision making process adopted with regard to the
Appellant complaints.
5. Inform approximate time/period (minimum to max) is normally taken by the MCD to
dispose off such complaints.
6. Inform the reasonable and convincing facts/reasons fro total inaction or inordinate
delay into action on applicant's complaints reflecting total negligence/failure of law
and the orders in democratic state of ours which is governed by the rules.
7. Inform the ensured, accountable and transparent procedures/ processes that are
adopted by the MCD under the rules during/for taking actions into such matters.
8. Inform the approximate time/period that would be taken by the concerned MCD
officials in the matters of the Applicant's complaints.
9. Inform the factual reasons of extending "undue benefits" to the law-violators by the
MCD officials in the matters of the Appellant's complaints.
10. Inform the reasons of insensitive attitude of MCD officials towards public
inconveniences/ problems arising out of non-implementation of law and order in the
present case.
11. How and by which MCD authorities legal actions would be initiated against the
MCD officials who had not been discharging their legal and proper duties,
responsibilities and liabilities into the matters of the of the complaint.
12. Inform the details of all legal authorities who should be rightly approached to make
complaint against the concerned faculty MCD officials lacking integrity and devotion
to duties, responsibilities and liabilities ignoring all rules in the matters of the
complaint.
13. Inform about the other sources wherefrom the complaints of the same matters have
been received for action.
14. Inform the rule and the transparent way in MCD to easy access to complaints' status,
movements and action taken report, as of the Appellant's Complaints.
15. Give details of all the officials guilty of violation of section 217 of IPC and section
13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for not taking action against the
encroachments and the illegal constructions on public land in the said market in
accordance with the laws and the orders required of them.
16. Appellant would like to inspect the files with the MCD, if any, related to the
Appellant's complaints and the removal of the encroachments and illegal
constructions in the said market. Appellant requested to intimate the date, time and
venue, for inspection.
17. Provide certified copy of latest Building Bylaws of MCD in force and Master Plan of
Delhi 2021 indicating the relevant pages dealing with the encroachments and
unauthorized constructions as appearing in said the market along with penal
provisions/actions against the violators of laws/ rules/ orders.
18. Inform the reasons for not uploading complete information and its regular updating
on MCD's website as required u/s 4 of the Act(obligations of Pubic authorities).
Inform the details of the officials responsible for compliance of the suo motu
disclosure of the information as required under the provisions of the RTI Act.
19. Provide the full list containing the names, designation, phone no. mobile numbers
along with official addresses of the officers who are responsible and liable to check
the illegalities, inactions and other irregularities in MCD. Which officer (s) shall be
liable if the matters are also be liable if the matters are also referred to CBI,
Vigilance, other investigating and action taking agencies, Media, Courts etc.
PIO's Reply:
No response.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No reply was received within mandated period.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
PIO was directed to ensure that the complete and specific reply to the Appellant by 15/07/2009.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Despite direction of the FAA the PIO didn't provided information sought.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jai Prakash Arya
Respondent: Mr. P.R. Meena, APIO on behalf of PIO Mr. V.R.Bansal;
The Respondent shows that the information has been provided to the Appellant on 24/09/2009.
The PIO will now provide the following information to the Appellant:
1- Whether the file was made for the complaint lodged by the Appellant. If the file was
made the status of the file. The PIO has given the informant that the file was not handed over by
the JE Mr. Naveen Dahiya. This is a very ambiguous statement which appears to hide more
information than given.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information as described above will be provided to the Appellant before 25 October 2009
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. The Respondent has brought a chart fixing the
responsibility of the officers for the delay. For one thing the MCD officers have been again
playing their favorite game of passing the papers without adding any value. They have identified
two officers who appear to be responsible for the very large delay. Mr. Naveen Dahiya JE
Building West Zone held on to the RTI application for 75 days without doing anything. At the
end of 75 days he has passed on the papers to Mr. Suman Tokas, JE Building subsequently Mr.
Suman Tokas gave it to Mr. Hitesh Kumar after 9 days without doing anything with the RTI
application Mr. Hitesh Kumar in turn sat on the RTI application for 96 days before handing it
over to Mr. Rajesh Sharma. Interestingly the letter shows that Mr. Rajesh Sharma(JE Building)
and Mr. Vijender Singh (AE Building) took just four days to provide information. It is clear that
Mr. Hitesh Kumar and Mr. Naveen Dahiya are responsible for the extraordinary delay in
providing the information.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs Mr. Hitesh Kumar
and Mr. Naveen Dahiya are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under
sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI
Act.
It appears that the PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
They will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 11 November 2009
at 12.00pm alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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
8 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
CC: to Mr. Hitesh Kumar and Mr. Naveen Dahiya through Mr. P.R. Meena, APIO.