CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01082/SG/00087
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01082
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Vinesh Kawatra
11/137, Malaya Nagar,
New Delhi-11001
Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Tyagi
Dy. Conservator of Forest (S)
& Public Information Officer under RTI
Act2005,
Govt.of NCT of Delhi,
O/o. The Conservator of Forest: South
Near Shooting Range, Tighlakabad,
New Delhi-110044
Secretary (Environment & Forest) &
First Appellate Authority Under RTI
Act2005
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate
New Delhi-110002
RTI filed on : 16-05-2007
PIO replied : 24-05-2007
First appeal filed on : 18-06-2007
First Appellate Authority order : 23-08-2007
Second Appeal filed on : 16-08-2007
Detail of information was required:
Intimation regarding construction of boundary wall for park behind Block 4,5,9,10 and 11 in
Malviya Nagar. Proved that trees are definitely standing as ‘Obstruction” in the middle of the
service road.
The PIO replied:
There is no valid Justification regarding proposal of cutting of these trees. PIO had no record
regarding asked the information by Appellant that, the permission granted for removel of 3
Trees standing in the middle of the road around park in between Block 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 in
Malviya Nagar.
The First Appellate Authority orders:
The SPIO provided the information to the Appellant as per records within the prescribed time
limit in the present case. Now, therefore, the Appellant has been furnished with the required
information as it exists on record by SPIO (South), Deptt. Of Forests & Wildlife.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. Vinesh Kawatra
Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Tyagi
The RTI application is a long essay and it is difficult to understand what information has been
sought. The appellant was again asked to frame a query for information, which he is unable to
do. He points out that the PIO has replied that orders for cutting three trees is not being given.
The appellant has shown the Commission that because the permission to cut three trees is not
being given a road is being blocked. The Commission cannot take any action on this matter,
though it might be causing distress to people living there.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
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
17 October, 2008
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2007/01082/SG/0087
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01082/