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/2008/00108//SG/0327
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00108/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. A.P. Singh,
RZ-27B, Gali No. 5/5,
Main Sagar Pur,
New Delhi – 110046.
Respondent 1 : Dy. Commissioner & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Najafgarh Zone,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
RTI filed on : 14/03/2007
PIO replied : 04/07/2007
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 06/08/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 03/10/2007
The appellant had asked regarding construction in Gali No. 5 & 6, Main
Sagarpur, Delhi. He wanted details of estimate / tender and terms of the work
being carried out by MCD.
Detail of required information:-
The appellant had asked about the details of construction of Gali No. 5 & 6, of Main
Sagar Pur Delhi. The appellant had said that, provide the details of tender / estimate,
of the work.
The PIO replied.
“Please refer to your letter No. 246/addl./Comm./H&E/527/RTI/AP/DC/NGZ
2007 dated 11/06/2007 on the subject cited above. the applicant in is appeal has
wrongly mentioned I.D. No. as 434 and 435 while the correct I.D. No. is 484 and 485
dated 14/03/2007. The comments/report in this regard is furnished here as under:
Two applications seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 were received in the
office of undersigned vide application I.D No 484 and 485 dated 14/03/2007 by Sh.
Aprajeta Prasad Singh, seeking information related to S.E./NGZ, EE-VI.Accordingly
both the I.D. applications were circulated to S.E./NGZ & EE.Div. VI for giving reply.
On non-receipt of information from EE-Div. VI, a reminder No. FDC/NGZ07/01
dated 02/04/2007 and No. F. DC/NGZ/07/05 dated 02/04/2007 were issued in case of
said I.D. No. 485 & 484 dated 14/03/2007 respectively. The information sought in
both the I. Ds cases, are of similar nature, related to Div. VI. The reply from EE Div.
VI was received on dated 17/04/2007 vide Diary No. 112/DC/NGZ for I.D. No. 484
and vide Dy. No. 114/DC/NGZ for I. D. No. 485, respectively.
Accordingly information was provided to the appellant vide this office letter no. F. I.
D. No/485-484/DC/NGZ/07/67 dated 19/04/2007 and No. F. I.D./485/DC/NGZ/07/66
dated 19/04/2007 Copy enclosed.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“The appellant had filed an appeal to provide the details of Road’s tender and estimate
of Gali No. 5 & 6 Main Sagarpur, New Delhi. and also provide details of term’s and
conditions of the tender or contractor who got this contract for construction of gali’s
by the MCD. But in the details, mentioned the copies of estimate only, the appellant
had demanded four points information from the PIO that is why, appellant was not
satisfied about that. The information had been provided to the appellant by the PIO
Najafgarh Zone by letter dated 19/04/2007. In this connection the First appellate
authority ordered that the information on four points given by the appellant in the
First appeal should be provided before 20/08/2007 and a copy of the information
should be sent to the First Appellate Authority office.”
Inspite of this no information was given to the appellant.
It appears from the submissions in the Second appeal, that no information was provide
after the First appellate authority’s order.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 20 December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO 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. He has further
refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that
the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has
clearly ordered the information to be given. .
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to send his written
submissions to the Commission giving reasons why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1). The PIO will send his written submissions and
proof of having sent the information to the appellant before 25 December, 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 November, 2008