CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000272/11838Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000272
Appellant : Mr. M K Kashyap
1X/3170, Gali No. 4 Dharmpura,
Gandhi Nagar Delhi-110031
Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar,
APIO & Superintendent,
Remunerative Projects Cell,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
25th Floor, Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002
RTI application filed on : 03.09.2010
PIO replied : 22.10.2010
First appeal filed on : 23.12.2010
First Appellate Authority order : No order given by the FAA
Second Appeal received on : 28.01.2011
S.No. Information sought by the Applicant Reply of the PIO
1. Provide information on how many multi-level car parking Does not pertain to this department.
were to be built at Mahavir Swami Park, Kailash Nagar in
Gandhi Nagar?
2. Please provide the copy of the order of the budget for the Does not pertain to this department.
construction of the underground parking.
3. When was the construction of this underground & multi level Does not pertain to this department.
parking started?
4. Provide the information regarding how much has been spent Does not pertain to this department.
on this parking since the inauguration till the refilling of the
same.
5. Provide the names, designations and department details of Does not pertain to this department.
the officers involved in the planning of this parking.
6. Tell whether the officers planning the parking were aware of Does not pertain to this department.
the Water Department's Sonia Vihar water pipeline under
this site.
7. Provide information on which officer approved the water Does not pertain to this department.
pipeline under the MCD park before the parking was
planned.
8. When and because of which technical difficulty was the Does not pertain to this department.
construction of this parking abandoned?
9. Provide name and address of the construction company Does not pertain to this department.
involved in the construction of the parking in question.
10. What actions were taken by the department to solve the Does not pertain to this department.
technical problems faced and which all agencies were
contacted for the same purpose , before the work was
abandoned?
11. Provide the names, designations and department details of Does not pertain to this department.
the officers responsible for the expenditure incurred with
regard the construction of the underground-multi level car
parking.
12. Which other car parking in the Gandhi Nagar area is to be Does not pertain to this department.
constructed?
13. Provide copy of the order through which the parking in the The contract has been given to M/s. Surya
Manzil Pushta Bandh road, Kailash Nagar and Geeta Colony Enterprise for a period of 2 years for the
Shamshan Ghat in the Gandhi Nagar area has been given to area from pillar no. 113 to 143 in the
the contractor. When was it given, to whom and for how Manzil Pushta Bandh road, Kailash Nagar
much? and Geeta Colony Shamshan Ghat in the
Gandhi Nagar area . It was given on
04.01.2008 and currently a monthly fee of
Rs.99015 is being given by the contractor.
14. Please the details on which contractor has been given the As above
contract for the 300m long and 7.5 m wide free car parking
constructed by PWD? Since which date has the same been
given? For what amount?
15. When will the encroachment in the 1300 m long and 7m Does not pertain to this department.
wide service lane between the Manzil Pushta Bandh road,
Kailash Nagar and Geeta Colony Shamshan Ghat in the
Gandhi Nagar area be removed to make parking for public
convenience?
Grounds of first Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
Order of the FAA:
No order given by the FAA.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing held on April 4, 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. K. Gaur, UDC on behalf of Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, PIO & Administrative Office;
“The Respondent has given a completely irresponsible answer to the Appellant stating that on
query nos. 1 to 12, 14 & 15 information was not available with his department. The RTI Act requires
as per Section-6(3) that if the subject matter is held by another public authority the RTI request should
be transferred within 05 days. The Respondent should have either obtained the information by taking
the assistance of the officer holding the information under Section-5(4) of transferred the RTI
application under Section-6(3). The irrelevant and irresponsible answer has been provided in 49 days.
As per the statement of Mr. K. K. Gaur the person responsible for this and deemed PIO is Mr. Raj
Kumar, APIO and Office Superintendent.”
Decision dated April 4, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs the PIO to supply the complete information on queries
01 to 12, 14 & 15,- after taking the assistance any other officer if necessary under
Section-5(4),- to the Appellant before 25 April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr.
Raj Kumar, APIO and Office Superintendent within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the APIO 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.
It appears that the APIO’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.
Mr. Raj Kumar, APIO and Office Superintendent will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 02 May 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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on May 2, 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar, APIO & Superintendent and Mr. Gauri Shankar, Translator.
The Commission noted that the RTI application dated 03/09/2010 was transferred under Section 6(3)
of the RTI Act from the Nodal Officer, Engineering Department (HQ), O/o Additional Deputy
Commissioner (Engineering) to the RP Cell vide letter dated 21/09/2010. Information sought only in
query 13 pertained to the RP Cell and the requisite information was provided to the Appellant vide
letter dated 22/10/2010.
The Respondents further stated that on receipt of the Commission’s order dated 04/04/2011, it was
identified that the information sought largely pertained to the O/o Executive Engineer (Project), MCD
(City Zone). The RTI application was transferred to the O/o Executive Engineer (Project), MCD (City
Zone), who provided information on queries 1 to 12 vide letter dated 21/04/2011. The Commission
noted that information sought under queries 14 and 15 pertained to the Public Works Department,
GNCTD.
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the aforesaid, the Commission hereby directs Mr. Raj Kumar, APIO & Superintendent to
transfer queries 14 and 15 along with a copy of this order to the PIO, Public Works Department,
GNCTD before May 15, 2011. The PIO, Public Works Department, GNCTD shall provide the
complete information in relation to queries 14 and 15 to the Appellant before June 10, 2011.
Further, the Commission hereby directs Mr. Raj Kumar, APIO & Superintendent and the Nodal
Officer, Engineering Department (HQ), O/o Additional Deputy Commissioner (Engineering) to
present themselves before this Commission on May 31, 2011 at 12:00 pm along with their written
submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended
against them under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Further, they may serve this notice to any other
official(s) who are responsible for the delay in providing the complete information, and may direct
them to be present before the Commission along with them on the aforesaid scheduled date and time.
They shall also produce copies of documents/ proof which they have relied upon before the
Commission on the said date.
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
May 2, 2011
CC: Nodal Officer,
Engineering Department (HQ),
O/o Additional Deputy Commissioner (Engineering),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
9th Floor, Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RJ)