CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002989/6347
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002989
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Sh Vinod Kumar Sarda
C-89 First Floor, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi –
110015
Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sinha
APIO & SDM
Government of NCT of Delhi
O/o the Dy. Commissioner (West),
Old Middle Building, Rampura,
Delhi - 110035
RTI application filed on : 29/06/2009
PIO replied : 21/07/2009 (not enclosed)
First appeal filed on : 19/08/2009 (not enclosed)
22/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 19/08/2009
Second Appeal received on : 26/11/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 09/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 11/01/2010
Information Sought:
Map/Drawing of Ring Road from Raja Garden Chowk to Mayapuri Chowk (Marbel Market)
with detail of Khasra numbers prepared by N.K. Engineers, E-356, Street No. 15, Ashok Nagar,
Delhi – 110093 for Office Kanungo O/o Deputy Commissioner (West), Old Middle School
Compound , Rampur, Delhi – 110035.
Reply of the PIO: (not enclosed)
The PIO informed the Appellant that copies could be obtained upon payment of Rs 80/-.
First Appeal:
An Appeal was made on 19/08/2009. (Not Enclosed)
An Appeal was once again made on 22/10/2009 as the fee of Rs. 80/- had been deposited and
still the requested maps were not provided.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that the Appellant could obtain a copy of the map and other relevant
documents by making the payment of Rs. 80/- against Treasury Receipt V, and directed the PIO
to provide the maps etc. within 15 days of the receipt of the Treasury Receipt. =
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sinha, APIO & SDM;
The Respondent states that he had asked the appellant to pay Rs.80/- for the copy of the
Map. When the Map was sent to the Appellant it was returned since it could not be delivered.
Subsequently the Map has been sent by Hand on 24/12/2009 when it has been received by the
Appellant. It appears that the PIO had sent the Map initially and it was not delivered by the
courier since he could not locate the address.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has 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
11 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PS)