CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001885/8982
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001885
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Lajinder Singh
C-66, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Bansal
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Suprintending Engineer Project VII
South Zone, Under Bhishm Pitamah Flyover,
Sewa Nagar, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 01/02/2010
PIO replied : 23/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 01/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 07/07/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Name of the officials(s) with their 1. Consultant M/s Meinhardt (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd.
designation(s) and their (India Branch) A-8, Sector 16, Noida-201301, UP,
supervisions/Seniors and other all such India.
persons who have actually carried out 2. EE Sh. Anil Kumar
work of survey, measurements and site 3. AE Mr. SP Tomar
inspections and supervision, on site with 4. JE Mr. Deepak Chauhan.
dates.
2. Complete documentations for the Park is already having a boundary wall around it and
measurements carried out along with car parking is proposed inside the boundary. Complete
locations of trees, existing structures documentation as demanded is of hundred pages.
inside and around the Park with Kindly Specify over this. As far as detail and location
distances inter seas measured/recorded. of trees are concerned, the plan sharing it is enclosed;
further this office is concerned with the area inside the
park only.
3. Details and documents for the changes The site location is fixed at one portion of the said park
effected with recorded reasons affected and not changed yet. The plan is enclosed.
all through the initial till final stage
like shifting of sire location of parking
from one point to other in the park.
4. Correspondence exchanged by your The land belongs to horticulture department MCD and
deptt with other departments of DDA dimension etc. are as per above.
and MCD among others so far so
the ownership(s), dimensions and
Page 1 of 2
location of car parking is concerned.
5. Number and name of the files where the Construction of Conventional underground M/L
information 1 to 4 above is Parking at Hauz Rani South Zone. Holding
recorded/held along with name of the Department- Office of the Executive Engineer (Parking
holding department. Projects) under Bhisham Pitamah Flyover, Sewa Nagar,
Opp. A-235, Defence Colony Delhi-110003
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Date in respect of query-1 will be provided. PIO was requested to provide drawing with measurement in
respect to query-2. For query-4 provide specific correspondence with DDA. File number with respect to
query-5 will be provided. PIO was also directed to facilitate an inspection to the appellant on 14/05/2010
in the office of EE (Parking Project). PIO was directed to provide the information to the Appellant within
10 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Lajinder Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, EE on behalf of Mr. Pradeep Bansal, PIO & SE;
The respondent has given information to the appellant after the order of the FAA also but there are
obvious discrepancies as given below:
1- The PIO has stated that the inception report of the consultant was received on 18 June 2008.
However, he also informed the appellant that the survey was carried out by the consultant from
June2008 to August 2008. When asked to clarify the respondent states that there is no record
of the date on which survey was carried out nor the date on which the MCD officers may have
gone to survey.
2- The PIO has given drawing as per the drawings available in the file. The appellant states that
he believes certain other measurements have been made by the consultant during the survey.
The PIO is directed to ask the consultant to give copies of all the measurements done during
the survey and give attested copies of this to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before
10 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
16 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)
Page 2 of 2