Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Jaggo Nagrik Awaaz And Welfare … vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 September, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Jaggo Nagrik Awaaz And Welfare … vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 September, 2010
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                              Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001916/9249
                                                                     Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001916

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant : Mr. Manmohan Mittal
Jaago Nagrik Awaaz and Welfare Society (regd.)
Registered Office Z-22, Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi – 110032.

Respondent                           :       Mr. Manish Rastogi
                                             Public Information Officer & SE( Plg.)
                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                             Office of Superintending Engineer (P)
                                             Room no. 83, Town Hall,
                                             Delhi- 06.

RTI application filed on             :       02/03/2010
PIO replied                          :       09/03/2010
First appeal filed on                :       12/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order      :       31/03/2010
Second Appeal received on            :       10/07/2010

Sl.                         Information Sought                                     Reply of the PIO
1. Reasons for the use of bricks on both sides of the road by MCD          The clarification of this
    A) Since when has the use of bricks with respect to the above been     particular point does not come
    stopped?                                                               under the rules of the RTI Act,
    B) Is the level of underground water reducing due to the same?         2005.

C) Is use or non-usage of bricks on the sides of the road correct in A) As Above
technical terms? B) As Above
D) Has the order passed by the Deputy Governor of MCD for the C) As Above
compulsion for use of bricks been suppressed by the authorities? D) As Above
Or if there is mistakes in this regard can it be amended? E) As Above
E) Is the development department of MCD responsible for the
reduction in underground water levels?

2. Instead of using Coal tar the MCD is using cement concrete for As Above.
building roads
A) Is the department not aware that the roads are not supposed to A) As Above
be moistened as they are not closed for even 12 hours? B) As Above
B) Due to the above, dust and pollution is caused in the C) As Above
environment, who is responsible for this? D) Not related to this office.
C) Life span of the roads is reduced to 25% due to the same, is this
not a waste of the people’s money?

D) Has the MCD taken any action against any responsible official
for the breakage of roads before time?

3. Dense concrete has been used on some roads in New Shahdara/ This information pertains to
Page 1 of 2
Mohan Park, Shahdara, Delhi – 32 Shahdara (North Zone)
A) On whose order has this been done? A) As Above
B) Why has the above been done only on some roads? B) As Above
C) Total expenditure incurred C) As Above

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal dismissed by the FAA.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and Appeal dismissed by the FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Manmohan Mittal;

Respondent: Mr. Manish Rastogi, Public Information Officer & SE( Plg.);

The appellant is guided by public interest and has made a serious suggestion trying to draw the
attention of MCD to some earlier practices in Road Construction which he feels were superior. His
queries therefore reframed.

The appellant feels that the earlier practice of providing Brick Pavements on the side berns of the road
resulted in lesser water lodging on the roads and also preservation of greenery. The appellant hopes that
MCD would reconsider its decision of having stopped this practice. The respondent is also directed to
check if there are any reasons on record for stopping this practice. If there are any reasons on the records
he will send a copy of this to the appellant.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the appellant
before 30 September 2010.

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
07 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)

Page 2 of 2