CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000433/13699
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000433
Complainant : Mr. S C Gupta
335-A/C-4/B, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
Respondent (1) : Public Information Officer,
O/o the Chief Auditor,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Civic Centre, JLN Marg
Minto Road, New Delhi
Respondent (2) : Public Information Officer,
Central Establishment Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civic Centre, JLN Marg
Minto Road, New Delhi
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant had filed a RTI application dated 03/08/2010 with PIO, O/o the Chief Auditor,
MCD asking for certain information. However, on not having received the information within the
mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before this
Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the Respondent PIO, on 13/05/2011 with
a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not
furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission is in receipt of the submissions of the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated
08/06/2011 wherein it has been stated that the RTI application dated 03/08/2010 was received in his
office on 03/08/2010. Subsequently, the RTI Application was transferred to the Respondent No.2 i.e.
PIO/CED vide letter dated 09/08/2010 for providing the relevant information/record with regard to
Query No. 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI Application. Further it has been stated that the reply to the RTI
application pertaining to the office of Respondent No.1 has been sent to the Complainant vide letter
dated 03/09/2010. Copy of such letter was enclosed. The PIO had sought additional fees on certain
queries vide this letter, the same was deposited vide the Complainant’s representation dated 30/12/2010.
Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 has shown to have provided the copy of documents vide a letter
dated 25/01/2011 to the Complainant, copy of which was also enclosed.
On perusal of the information provided it has been observed that in response to Query No. 4 the
Respondent No.1 has denied the information citing Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, the
Commission notes that the Complainant vide this query is seeking a copy of the rule/authority under
which the staff car has been provided to Shri.Nand Kishore, the Chief Auditor, MCD, which clearly falls
within the ambit of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the PIO should have clearly stated
if no such rule exists and if it exists a copy of such rule should have been provided or there should have
been an explanation as to why the PIO believes the query does not fall under the definition of
information as per the Act.
Further, on Query No. 6, 7 and 8 the Respondent No.1 has stated in his letter dated 03/09/2010
that similar information has been provided to the Complainant vide different letters in answer to few
earlier RTI applications of the same Complainant. Subsequently, the PIO has stated to have provided the
copy of such letters vide which information on similar queries was provided to the Complainant.
However, this is not an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the PIO should have
provided clear and complete information as has been sought in the present RTI Application. The PIO
has also not enclosed the copy of the letters dated 27/05/2008, 15/09/2009, 25/09/2009 which is shown
to have been provided vide PIO’s above said letter to the Complainant dated 25/01/2011 as proof to the
Commission. Additionally, on Query No.9 the PIO has stated that information is not available in
compiled format; which is again not an appropriate response. The PIO should have provided an
inspection of the sought records to the Complainant if the same was not available in compiled format.
It is also pertinent to note that there is no proof of having provided the information on Query
No. 1, 2 and 3 to the Complainant by Respondent No.2.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
In view of the aforesaid the Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to submit before the
Commission as proof with regard to Query No. 6, 7 and 8 copies of the letters dated 27/05/2008,
15/09/2009, 25/09/2009 which is shown to have been provided vide PIO’s above said letter to the
Complainant dated 25/10/2011.
The Respondent No.1 is also directed to clearly state with regard to Query No.1 whether such
rule exists, if it does, copy of the rule will be provided. If no such rule exists on record, a statement
should be provided to this effect to the Complainant. Furthermore, he is directed to facilitate an
inspection of the relevant records at the Respondent office with respect to information sought vide
Query No. 9 to the Complainant on 22/08/2011 between 10 am to 4 pm. The compliance report with
regard to all the queries herein mentioned above should reach the Commission before 30/08/2011.
The Commission directs the Respondent No.2 to provide specific and complete information with
respect to Query number 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application dated 03/08/2010 to the Complainant before
15/08/2011 with a copy to the Commission.
The delay in providing the information within the mandated time as per the provisions of the RTI
Act appears to be without any reasonable cause on the part of Respondent No.2. Therefore he is hereby
directed to submit before this Commission his written submissions to show cause why penalty should
not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the
RTI Act. If the information has been already provided to the Complainant, copy of such information
should be sent along with to the Commission before 22/08/2011
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
27 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)