CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003344/11165Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003344
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta
F-2194, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi-89
Respondent : Mr. M. P. Gupta
PIO & S-E II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Rohini Zone)
Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi-85
RTI application filed on : 13/08/2010
PIO replied : 09/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 29/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 27/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/11/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. In sector 16 Rohini a road has been declared as commercial road. In this road Not related to General
details are required of Parking lots constructed by MCD for the public branch,
including site plan.
2. Details of commercial establishments under the MCD who have paid the Details not available with
parking charges and what the MCD has done to that sum. the general branch.
3. If parking lots haven’t been constructed then whether they have the right to Details not available with
park their vehicles on the road. Whether MCD will take any action on the the general branch.
matter. Also because of this the DTC has deprived bus services to the people
living in this locality.
4. When will the MCD clear the illegal possession in this area? Illegal possessions are cleared
timely.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO to gather information from concerned departments and give it to the appellant within 3 weeks.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non compliance of FAA’s order by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 28/01/2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. S. R. Meena, EE(B-II) and Mr. R. K. Sharma, EE(M-IV) on behalf of Mr. M. P. Gupta,
PIO & S-E II ; Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AE ;
“The PIO admits that no information has been supplied to the Appellant inspite of the clear order of the
First Appellate Authority (FAA). It is significant that the matter related to illegal and unauthorized
properties and MCD officers appear to be ensuring that information is not provided about these.
Page 1 of 3
The Respondent states that the deemed PIO was Mr. Mahesh, OI(B) who had been given the order of the
FAA to provide the information.”
Decision dated 28/01/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“Mr. S. R. Meena, EE(B-II) is directed to provide the complete information to the
Appellant before 10 February 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
Deemed PIO Mr. Mahesh, OI(B) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a
reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has
clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of
Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Deemed PIO Mr. Mahesh, OI(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
14 March, 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the
information to the appellant.”
Facts leading to showcause hearing on 06/06/2011:
On 14/03/2011 during the showcause hearing, the deemed PIO & OI(B) Mr. Mahesh appeared and
submitted that since Query nos. 1, 3 & 4 of the RTI application dated 13/08/2010 pertain to the EE(M-IV) &
EE(Proj-III), the RTI application was earlier transferred to EE(M-IV) & EE(Proj-III). Mr. Mahesh also
claimed that he is not the person responsible for not providing the information. Further a reply dated
08/02/2011 to the Appellant by Deemed PIO & EE(B-II) Mr. S.R. Meena, on perusal of which it appears
that with respect to Query nos. 1 & 2, the RTI application was transferred to the PIO & ADC, RP Cell on
03/12/2010. However the Appellant submitted that no information has been furnished by the PIO & ADC,
RP Cell and moreover the information provided to him by Mr. S.R. Meena is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Therefore, the Commission directed the PIO & SE-II Mr. M.P. Gupta to review the reply dated
08/02/2011 and provide complete and correct information to the Appellant before 27/05/2011. Further, the
Commission decided to schedule another hearing in this matter on 06/06/2011 at 11:30am. The
Commission directed to present Mr. M.P. Gupta, Mr. S.R. Meena, and Mr. Mahesh and the PIO &
ADC, R.P. Cell to present themselves before Commission on 06/06/2011 at 11.00 am along with their
written explanations to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action not be
recommended against them for failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 06/06/2011:
Appellant: Mr. N.K. Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. M.P. Gupta, PIO & SE-II, Mr. Punit Kumar Sharma, APIO Suptd., R.P.Cell, Mr. S.R.
Meena, APIO & EE(B-II), Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Deemed PIO & AE(B-II), Mr. Mahesh, Deemed PIO &
OI(B) and Mr. S.S. Meena, Deemed PIO & JE(B);
The PIO Mr. M.P. Gupta has submitted that after the Commission’s order dated 28/01/2011
whatever information available was provided to the Appellant on 08/02/0211. Further to the Commission’s
notice dated 06/05/2011 a reply dated 26/05/2011 with updated information has been provided to the
Appellant. The Appellant is still unsatisfied with the information provided to him.
Page 2 of 3
The APIO Mr. Punit Kumar Sharma from RP Cell has submitted that the information regarding
Query no.1 had already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 24/12/2010, now the Appellant has
accepted the same.
The PIO has provided the information as sought by the Appellant that the parking place has not been
decided so far. The PIO has stated that the matter is under consideration and the Appellant would like the
details of the matter that is under consideration. The rest of the information has all been provided to the
Appellant.
The PIO claims that he sought the assistance of Mr. S. R. Meena, EE to supply the information as
per FAA’s order. Mr. S. R. Meena claims that he sought the assistance of Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, AE, who
inturn claims that he had asked Mr. S. S. Meena, JE to provide the information. Mr. S. S. Meena, JE claims
that this information was not with him and states that his assistance has not been sought for providing the
information. In view of this the Commission directs Mr. S. R. Meena, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar and Mr. S. S.
Meena to appear before the Commission on 08 June 2011 at 11.30AM alongwith relevant documents to
show who was responsible for implementing the order of the FAA.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs the PIO to provide attested photocopies of the proposal
alongwith all communications and file notings to the Appellant before 20 June 2011.
The Commission also directed Mr. S. R. Meena, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar and Mr. S. S.
Meena to appear before the Commission on 08 June 2011 at 11.30AM alongwith relevant
documents to show who was responsible for implementing the order of the FAA.
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
06 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Su)
CC to,
1- Mr. S. R. Meena, EE,
2- Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, AE
3- Mr. S. S. Meena, JE
Page 3 of 3