Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Aditya Mitra vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr. Aditya Mitra vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 2010
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                       Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000217/7084
                                                             Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000217

Appellant                                     :       Mr. Aditya Mitra,
                                                      236 -D, Motia Khan DDA LIG Flats,
                                                      Jhandewalan,
                                                      New Delhi -110055.

Respondent                                    :       Mr. N. K. Gupta
                                                      Public Information Officer & SE
                                                      O/o the Suptdg. Engineer,
                                                      Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
                                                      Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
                                                      Idgah Road, Delhi -110006.

RTI application filed on                      :       04/09/2009
PIO replied                                   :       01/10/2009
First Appeal filed on                         :       12/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order               :       Not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on                     :       27/01/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on                     :       04/02/2010
Hearing Held on                               :       09/03/2010

Appellant sought information whether the permission from MCD had been taken by BSES
Yamuna Power Ltd. for digging the road at colony of the Appellant. In this regard, he sought six
queries. Out of them, he was not satisfied on following points:
 Sl.          Information Sought                                   PIO's reply
 3. If yes, how they dug the roads of The necessary estimate has been framed for
      the area & who is responsible for improvement of said road and the same is under
      this?                                   tendering process. As soon as the work order is issued
                                              to the concerned contractor other work will got
                                              started.
 4. Malba & Stones are lying every The malba & stones has been removed from said site.
      where. Who's responsible for
      clearing this?
 5. Who is responsible for the said The Maintenance/repair works is carried in the said
      condition of the colony?                colony from time to time by Maintenance Deptt./SPZ,
                                              hence the condition of the said colony is satisfactory.
 6. What is the departments (MCD) If any civic agency applied for permission to road
      policy in these types of digging cutting for laying cable/pipes etc. the MCD give the
      cases,?                                 necessary permission to concerned agency under
                                              "Deposit and Dig" scheme/policy.

Grounds for First Appeal:
Incorrect information was provided in respect of point nos. 3, 4, 5, 6.
 Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not mentioned.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Wrong information.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Aditya Mitra;

Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, Public Information Officer & SE; Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE and
Deemed PIO;

The First Appellate Authority Ms. Renu K. Jagdev, Dy. Commissioner appears to be
guilty of dereliction of duty since it appears that she has passed an order in the matter on
18/02/2010 though the fist appeal was filed on 12/10/2009.

The First Appellate Authority Ms. Renu K. Jagdev, Dy. Commissioner is directed to send
her explanation to the Commission before 30 March 2010, why the Commission should not
recommend disciplinary action against her for dereliction of duty.

The Appellant points out that the road around his house has not been cleared and that debris are
there all around. He claims that the road around his house is not been attended to since he has
filed RTI application. Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE and Deemed PIO is assuring the appellant that this road
will be attended to before 30 March 2010 and he will send a compliance report to the appellant
by 30 March 2010.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE and Deemed PIO will give the information as directed above to the
Appellant before 30 March 2010.

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
09 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj