CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000626/3327
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000626
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.D.C.Sharma
C-15, Mahendra Park,
Pankha Road, New Delhi – 110058
Respondent : The Suptd. Engineer (NZ) & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of the Suptd. Engineer,
Najafgarh Zone, Najafgarh, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 22/08/2008
PIO replied : 05/12/2008
First appeal filed on : 16/10/2008
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 30/03/2009
The Details of required information:-
The appellant had sought information regarding illegal construction carried out at the
property No.C-14, Mahendra Park, Pankha Road, New Delhi. The appellant through his 3
queries sought:
1- What action is taken by MCD in furtherance of booking of the abovesaid
property U/s 343 & 344 DMC Act?
2- What action is taken by MCD against the builder after serving him the
demolition order? What was the reply of the builder in reply to the notice of
demolition. Copy of the same be supplied to the undersigned.
3- If no action has been taken what is the reason for that?
The PIO’s reply.
The PIO Superintending Engineer -II, MCD, West Zone, Rajouri Garden transferred the
RTI Application to PIO Superintending Engineer, MCD, Najafragh Zone, New Delhi on
24/09/2008 which is around 33 days of delay. Where as PIO, SE-Najafgarh Zone, in his
reply to the appellant dated 05/12/2008 informed the appellant that he had sought
information from EE(B). He also requested EE(B) to furnish the reply as soon as
possible.
However, it appears that no reply was received by the appellant from all three PIO’s
i.e.PIO, MCD, West Zone, PIO, Najafgarh Zone and EE(B).
Since no reply was received from all the three PIO’s the appellant filed First Appeal
before the First Appellate Authority.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Sharma on behalf of Mr.D.C.Sharma
Respondent : Mr. R.S.Rathi on behalf of PIO, Mr. V.K.Tyagi, Executive Engineer
The PIO has brought his reply to the RTI query before the Commission. The reply is
dated 18/05/2009 and the respondent makes no claim of having sent any information
earlier. The only answer appears to be the one dated 05/12/2008 where the PIO has said
that he is seeking the assistance of EE(Building) on 07/10/2008.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant before the Commission.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Mr.V.K.Tyagi
EE (Building) 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 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 June, 2009. He will also submit
proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20th May, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)