CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003186/6627
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003186
Appellant : Mr. Narendra Pal Kashyap
A-48,Shyam Colony,
Budh Vihar Extention,
Delhi-86
Respondent : Mr. K. Sambhamurti
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engg,
Flood Control Department
Govt. of NCD of Delhi
Flood Circle-III, Sec.15, Rohini Delhi-85
RTI application filed on : 17/07/2009
PIO replied : 03/08/2009
First Appeal filed on : 04/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 09/12/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 17/12/2009
Sr. Information sought: PIO's Reply
1. When the tender was passed for the construction and The date of tender issue-08/07/2008
what was the amount expenditure for this? What was The amount-2.3 Lakh
the length of this street? What is the name of the The name of the contractor-
contractor for this construction? Had he constructed Mess. J & S Construction
the street as pakka in accordance with the map of the Yes, the construction was in accordance of the
colony? colony map as received from U.D.
Department.
2. Why not the street was constructed as pakka No, the tender was not for the construction of
completely as some part of it was left without making whole street.
pakka?
3. Whether the tender has been issued again in 2009 for The tender of the above mentioned street
this above mentioned street and if yes, mention the along with other streets has been issued on
date of this issue. What is the estimated cost price and 10/06/2009 and the estimated cost price is
what is the dead line for this construction? Whether 52.78 lakh and the time duration is of 4
this street will be constructed completely or partially? months. The street will be constructed wholly.
4. Whether in all the streets constructed till date in the All the constructions by this office are done in
Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, Phase-2,the concrete and accordance with the Govt. standards
cement was used in accordance with the Govt.
standards? If yes, can the construction matter be
inspected now?
5. Whether all the streets constructed in the Shyam In all the constructed streets in Budh Vihar
colony, the standard map of the colony has been Phase-2,the map of U.D. Department has been
followed? followed.
6. If the streets have not been constructed in accordance The reply of this query is given in reply of
of the Govt. standards, whether there will be query no.4.
construction again of those ones? What action will be
taken against that contactors?
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply from PIO and the Appellant asked for the inspection of the construction matter i.e.
cement, concrete. etc.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The EE CD-IX/APIO and SE FC-III/PIO were directed to:
1.Make available a copy of the plan of the colony showing clearly the work being executed under the
ongoing agreement.
2.Visit the site along with the Appellant on 30/10/2009 at 11:30 a.m. and identify all the paths, streets
where the work is not executed as per specification and take necessary action to get the defects rectified.
3.To check the levels of the drains, even of those which have not been constructed under the agreement
and have only been raised to take care of any overflow and do the needful so as to avoid any stagnation of
water in these drains.
4.To get removed/replaced all the substandard bricks from the site and ensure execution of the work as
per specifications.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Only one contactor named Radhe Shyam has visited the site along with the Appellant which was also not
satisfactory but other authorities, even have not followed the any of the directions of the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Narendra Pal Kashyap;
Respondent: Mr. K. Sambhamurti, PIO & SE; Mr. P.K.Garg, Assistant Engineer;
Mr. P.K.Garg, Assistant Engineer has given a copy of the colony without showing the work being
executed as ordered by the First Appellate Authority. He produced the Map with the work being marked
as per the order of the FAA but admits that he gave a plan to the Appellant without showing this marking.
The other information appears to have been provided but the appellant has a grievance that the work is not
being done properly. The PIO Mr. Sambhamurti has offered to take a visit of the site and take personal
interest to see if the work is done properly and to good standard.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been provided.
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
01 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj