CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001542/14014-Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001542
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Anirudh Sharma
1037, LIG DDA Flats,
East of Loni Road,
Shahdara, New Delhi - 110 093
Respondent (1) : Mr. Raj Pal
Deemed PIO & EE(M-III)
O/o the SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara North Zone
Keshav Chowk, GT Road,
Shahdara, New Delhi - 110 032
(2) : Mr. A. K. Mittal
PIO & SE-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara North Zone
Keshav Chowk, GT Road,
Shahdara, New Delhi - 110 032
RTI application filed on : 04/03/2011 and 10/03/2011
PIO replied on : Not mentioned.
First Appeal filed on : 21/04/2011
PIO reply after First Appeal : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 08/06/2011
Information Sought:
1. As in RTI application dated 04/03/2011
• Complete details and use of mobile phones towers installed with due permission and
N.O.C issued by MCD in Shahdara North Zone.
2. As in RTI application dated 10/03/2011
• Complete details and photocopies of relevant documents pertaining to various
developmental works done using councilors' fund during last 4 years, i.e
Financial year 2007-2008
Financial year 2008-2009
Financial year 2009-2010
Financial year 2010- till date
By M.C.D councilors viz,:
1. Sh. T.C Sharma, M.C.D Councillor ward no. 256
2. Sh Divya Jaiswal, M.C.D Councillor ward no. 267
Grounds for the First Appeals dated 15/04/2011 and 21/04/2011:
Information was not furnished within the prescribed period of 30 days by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order given by the FAA.
Page 1 of 3
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been provided by the PIO and further no order has been passed by the FAA by the
first appeal.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 11 August 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Anirudh Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Raj Pal, Deemed PIO & EE(M-II);
“The respondent states that the RTI application filed on 10/03/2011 was received by him on
22/03/2011. He states that the information for ward no 256 and 267 would be available with PIO/SE-I
Mr. A. K. Mittal. He therefore sent it back to PIO/SE-II who had sent the RTI application to him. The
PIO/SE-II transferred the application to PIO/SE-I on 31/03/2011. He claims that PIO/SE-I sent the RTI
application to him on 06/05/2011. The Appellant had mentioned that he wanted information about the
expenditure of Mr. Divya Jaiswal of ward no 267. The respondent states that Mr. Divya Jaiswal’s ward
number is 247. He then sent the information regarding the total expenditure on 23/06/2011 to the
Appellant and asked for additional fees to be paid for the documents giving the details. The Appellant
states that he has received no information from PIO/SE-I about the expenditure by Mr. T. C. Sharma
corporator of Ward no. 256. The respondent has erred in demanding additional fee since the period of
30 days has already been over.
The Appellant also points out that the FAA Mr. D. P. Ture did not pass any order in this matter. He had
filed the appeal on 21/04/2011 but the order of the FAA was issued only on 20/06/2011. The FAA had
not passed any order within the time specified under the RTI Act.”
Decision dated 11 August 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The deemed PIO Mr. Raj Pal is directed to send the balance information to the Appellant free of cost
before 25 August 2011.
PIO/SE-I Mr. A. K. Mittal is directed to provide the complete information regarding the funds spent by
Mr. T. C. Sharma, Corporator ward no. 256 to the Appellant before 30 August 2011.
The First Appellate Authority Mr. D. P. Ture is directed to send his explanation to the Commission
before 30 August 2011, why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against him for
dereliction of duty.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO/SE-I Mr. A. K. Mittal and Deemed PIO Mr. Raj Pal within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and deemed PIO 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/SE-
I Mr. A. K. Mittal and Deemed PIO Mr. Raj Pal will present themselves before the Commission at
the above address on 06 September 04.30PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the
information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having
sent the information to the appellant.”
Submission’s received from Mr. D.P. Ture, First Appellate Authority:
The Commission has received a letter from the First Appellate Authority Mr. D. P. Ture on
29/08/2011 stating that, “Regarding mentioned decision it is submitted that this appeal along with some
other appeals were not listed for hearing due to the pendency of appeals left by my predecessor. In
addition to this it is also stated that Sh. Satya Prakash, Jr. Steno who were dealing in the matter was
suddenly transferred to Commission of Inquiry setup by GNCTD to inquire into the unfortunate incident
of Lalita Park in Laxmi Nagar area. However, as soon as it came to my notice, the appeal was disposed
immediately vide order No. 470/PA/DC (SHAH) NORTH ZONE/2011 dated 20.06.2011 & 454/PA/DC
(SHAH) NORTH ZONE/2011 dated 20.06.2011. The delay is highly regretted. In view of above, the
commission is requested to kindly withdraw the notice contained in the above mentioned decision.”
Page 2 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 06 September 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Anirudh Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Mittal, SE-I; Mr. Raj Pal, EE(M-III), Shahdara North Zone; Mr. P. V. Singh,
EE(M-II); and Mr. Ajay Kumar, AE(M-II);
The Commission accepts the explanation of the First Appellate Authority with a warning that he
should ensure that he holds the hearings and issues decisions within the time mandated under RTI Act.
The information has been provided to the Appellant but the information provided from EE(M-II) does
not have the work order number, date and tender amount. These should be provided to the Appellant
before 12 September 2011.
The RTI application had sought information regarding the corporator’s funds in two different wards.
According to the respondents these wards belong to SE-I & SE-II. The RTI Application is claimed to
have been received on 22/03/2011 by Mr. Raj Pal, EE(M-III). He claims that the person responsible for
supplying the information was Mr. A. K. Jain, AE who did not provide the information. As per the RTI
Act Mr. Raj Pal was the deemed PIO as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. However, if Mr. A. K. Jain, AE
accepts that he was responsible for delay the Commission will consider the matter. The Commission
gives an opportunity to Mr. Raj Pal and Mr. A. K. Jain to present themselves before the Commission on
12 September 2011 at 04.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed
on one of them for not supplying the information within 30 days as mandated under the Act.
The RTI application is claimed to have reached Mr. A. K. Mittal, SE-I on 14/03/2011. He claims that he
sought the assistance of Mr. A. K. Dixit on 15/03/2011 to provide the information to the Appellant. He
claims that the deemed PIO Mr. A. K. Dixit sent a letter to the Appellant on 08/04/2011 asking him to
come and inspect the records. The Appellant states that he has never received this letter and the
respondent has not brought any speed post receipt to prove that he had sent the letter. The Commission
notes that the minimum requirement for anyone to claim that he had sent the information is the speed
post receipt. However, the Commission gives one more opportunity to Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. A. K.
Dixit to present themselves before the Commission on 12 September 2011 at 04.00PM.
Adjunct Decision:
Mr. P. V. Singh is directed to rovide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 12 September 2011.
The Commission also directs Mr. Raj Pal EE(M-III), Mr. A. K. Jain AE, Mr. A. K.
Mittal SE-I and Mr. A. K. Dixit to present themselves before the Commission on
12 September 2011 at 04.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should
not be imposed on them.
If they feel that they are other persons responsible for the delay they are directed to bring
such persons before the Commission on 12/09/2011.
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 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (JS))
Copies to:
1- Mr. A. K. Jain,
2- Mr. A. K. Dixit,
Page 3 of 3