CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002373/9641
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002373
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Pradeep Dutta,
S/o. Dr P.K. Dutta,
A-2, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi 110048
Respondent : Mr. Dilip Ramnani
Public Information Officer & SE-I
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
O/o the SE-I, South Zone,
Green Park, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 20/03/2010
PIO replied : 07/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 07/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 25/08/2010
Information Sought:
1. Kindly supply the certified extract of the field survey report on the basis of which this stretch of road
was declared as mixed use. I reserve the right of inspection after receiving the RTI reply.
2. Was there any specific request of or consultation with RWA concerned before this street was
declared as a mixed use street?
• If yes, kindly supply information as to when this was done and whether this was governed by
Para 15.10 of the master plan 2021.
• Documents (if any) regarding these consultations may also be provided. I reserve the right of
inspection after receiving the RTI reply.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. Copy of survey report is enclosed.
2. As above.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
“He has not answered to point no. 2 of the RTI application viz whether there was any specific
request of RWA before this street was declared a mixed use street.”
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by FAA
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No answer was given by the PIO, to point no. 2 which is deemed refusal as per RTI Act, of 2005. No
order passed by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Pradeep Dutta;
Respondent: Mr. R. S. Gupta, EE(B-I) on behalf of Mr. Dilip Ramnani, PIO & SE-I;
The RTI application had been filed by the appellant with the PIO Town Planning Dept. on
20/03/2010. From the records it appears that this was transferred on 28/04/2010 to the PIO of Central Zone.
It appears that PIO of Central Zone transferred then transferred this RTI application on 18/05/2010 to PIO,
South Zone. PIO, South Zone gave information on query-1 on 07/06/2010 and gave a completely irrelevant
and irresponsible answer to query-2 why they did not have the information at all. The respondent claims that
he sent the reply to central zone in the hope that central zone would realize that query-2 has not been
answered. Finally it appears that the information has been given by Town Planning Dept. on 24/09/2010.
This is a classic case of the inefficiency and work creation methods of MCD since two simple queries were
shunted about without any officers applying their minds. The Commission feels that the appellant had to
unnecessary file the second appeal before the Commission and get the information very late. He also have to
appear before the Commission. In view of this the Commission decides that the appellant needs to be
compensated for the loss and detriment suffered by him. The Commission under its powers under Section
19(8)(b) awards a compensation of Rs2000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him.
The Commission clearly holds PIO (Town Planning), PIO (Central Zone) and PIO(South Zone) responsible
for providing the information late.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
The PIO (South Zone) is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- is sent to the appellant
before 30 November 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
(Town Planning), PIO (Central Zone) and PIO(South Zone) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice
is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on them.
PIO (Town Planning), PIO (Central Zone) and PIO(South Zone) will present themselves before the
Commission at the above address on 04 November 2010 at 05.00PM alongwith their written submissions
showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO
is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)
CC:
To,
PIO (Town Planning), PIO (Central Zone) through PIO (South Zone) Mr. Dilip Ramnani;