CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002949/6285
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002949
Appellant : Mr. V. P Taxak
H.No.-758, Sector-A,
Pocket-B & C,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
Respondent : Mr. Virender Kumar
Public Information Officer & EE
O/o the Executive Engineer (South)-I
Delhi Jal Board,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Qutab Booster Pumping station,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
RTI application filed on : 27/05/2009
PIO replied : 25/06/2009
First Appeal filed on : 29/06/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 20/07/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 18/11/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 04/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 06/01/2010
Appellant sought following information regarding
S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. After coming to the notices of DJB The reply of this question has already been given to Appellant
officials, the direct motor vide (I.D No. 3665 in Para No. 2(Copy attached)"
(separate motor) with direct line Reply what given by the PIO in above mentioned id and para,
to some flats not removed and was:
disconnected. The details with "Executive Engineer-in-charge of the maintenance division
file noting be provided. responsible or Vasant Kunj area is the competent authority to
analyze the existing problems of distribution of supply, initiate
appropriate proposals and get them implemented."
2. What action is being taken by the The reply of this question has already been given to Appellant
DJB Vigilance Deptt/ Officials vide (ID No. 3665) in Para No. 6 (Copy attached).
against Mr. P. K Gera, ZE Vasant Reply given by the PIO in respect of above mention id and
Kunj for disturbing the whole para no was :
water supply for his vested "Pertains to Vigilance Wing of DJB."
interest? The details of past and
present with file noting be
provided.
3. Letters/ Complaints sent to DJB As regard reply of letters/ complaints of Appellant, the same
are not replied. The reasons for are replied to him in person from time to time and he is
ignorance with details be frequently & regularly pursuing DJB officials also on phones
provided. which are promptly replied.
4. Action taken for equal The difference of pressure at individual consumer's end
distribution of water with equal depends on many factors such as elevation/ difference in
pressure. The details be provided. positions of storage tanks and their inlet pipe etc. Most critical
reasons for disparity is illegal use of online boosters by the
residents which causes hydraulic imbalance.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"With regard to Point no. 1.,it may be clarified to the appellant whether the direct line supposed to be provided
is legal or illegal. Regarding Point no.2 vigilance Department must make all efforts to trace the concerned file
and provide relevant information to the appellant in a week's time under intimation to this office. Regarding
Point No. 3, the appellant may also be informed if any reply/communication was made with the appellant, the
copies of the replies may be provided to him.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Malafide intention of DJB officials.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. V. P Taxak;
Respondent: Mr. Virender Kumar, Public Information Officer & EE;
The Appellant has been trying to pursue the problem of not getting proper water supply since many
years. He alleges that some powerful goops are getting water supply adequately even on the second floor while
other residence in the same area are unable to get water on the ground floor. The Respondent states that
understanding the difficulty of the appellant DJB has sanctioned the work of improving the water supply to the
appellant and the other users how have been getting less water supply. According to the Respondent the MCD
has not been very cooperative in allowing them to implement the work. The Commission hopes that MCD and
DJB will both cooperate to ensure that citizen’s genuine needs of water are met as soon as possible.
As regards the complaint made by the appellant the vigilance department has informed by a letter of 31/08/2009
that the file relating to this “could not be traced”. It is a very sad comment that vigilance files are stolen/lost.
Perhaps another vigilance department would have to be created to monitor the lost files of the vigilance
department. Mr. S.K.Sharma, Dy. Director of Vigilance is hereby directed to file a police complaint about the
theft/loss of the said file mentioning the names of the officers who last handled the file and send it to the
Appellant and the Commission.
The other information has been provided by the PIO.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
Mr. S.K.Sharma, Dy. Director of Vigilance is hereby directed to file a police complaint about the
theft/loss of the said file mentioning the names of the officers who last handled the file and send it to the
Appellant and the Commission before 30 January 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
06 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj