Central Information Commission
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block - IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00930/SG/00104
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00930
Appellant : Dr. Man Mohan Gulati
115-A, SFS, DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi - 110007
Respondent(I) : Smt. Kiran Dabral
Deputy Commissioner (Civil Lines Zone) &
Public Information Officer Under RTI Act 2005
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civil Lines Zone, 16, Rajpur Road,
Delhi-110054
Respondent(II) : Deputy Commissioner (S.P. Zone) &
Public Information Officer Under RTI Act 2005
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
2nd Floor, (S.P. Zone), Idagh, Delhi - 110006
RTI filed on : 09.04.07
PIO replied : 27.04.07
First appeal filed on : 22.05.07
Name of First Appellate Authority : Shri H.B. Sharma,
Addl. Commissioner (Gen & CSD)
First appellate Authority's order : FAA ordered that the information sought by the
appellant in his original application is very vague and
nothing substantial as material to constitute
information under RTI Act has been mentioned rather
it is in the shape of questionnaire or seeking answer to
certain queries which do not come within the scope of
the statute seeking information. Appeal is therefore
rejected.
Second Appeal Filed on : 10.08.07
Applicant filed application under Right to Information Act seeking information about the
name of the in charge of field staff, what is meant by narration "alteration/additions" in
the shape of projection in DDA Flats vide your letter no. 271/EE (B)/CLZ/2006 dated
15.05.2006, under which By-Laws of DMC Act, 1957 you have asserted with statement
"Addition/alteration" in DDA Flats are depending upon the nature of the projection
work carried out. Appellant received the reply by PIO on 27-04-2007 stating that "no
material information has been asked for in your letter, whereas these contain only
queries and nothing concrete." You have also questioned the working of Monitoring
Committee appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also asked what the
municipal staff is doing. All these queries are vague and do not constitute under RTI
Act, 2005, please. So he filed first appeal. Appellate Authority passed the order that the
information sought by the appellant in his original application is very vague and
nothing substantial as material to constitute information under RTI Act has been
mentioned rather it is in the shape of questionnaire or seeking answer to certain queries
which do not come within the scope of the statute seeking information. Appeal is
therefore rejected. Dissatisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority the
appellant has filed a second appeal on 10-08-07.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. Man Mohan Gulati
Respondent: Mr. C.B.Singh representing SP Zone.
The appellant informs that the PIO at the relevant time was Mrs. Kiran Dabral
who has not come for the hearing nor sent any communication. The appellant had asked
information on four points. The Commission agrees with the First appellate authority that
three of the points were not seeking information. However the appellant’s query:
“a. The name of field-staff in-charge of Gulabi Bagh area who ought to carry out field visits
as required in para (ix) of MOUD letter no. J-13036/3/96-DDIIB dated 28-2-2000”
should have been provided.
The respondent Mr. Singh says this query was relating to the DC (Civil line)
Decision:
The appeal is partially allowed.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the information by the PIO within
30 days as required by the law.
The PIO Mrs. Dabral will ensure that the information is provided to the appellant by 5th
November, 2008.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO, Mrs. Kiran Dabral 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 her, and she is directed to present herself before the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her. She will present herself
before the Commission at the above address on 19 November, 2008 at 3.00 pm alongwith his
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated
under Section 20 (1). She will also produce evidence of having furnished the information to
appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber. .
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20th October 2008
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00930/SG/104
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00930/