CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003161/10349
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003161
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Bansi Lal
Shop No.11, DDA Market-II,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sector 4,
New Delhi-110062
Respondent : The Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director,
Horticulture Department (South Zone),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Green Park, Near Uphaar Cinema,
New Delhi-110016
RTI application filed on : 10/06/2010
PIO replied : 23/07/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 11/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 10/11/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Where are the four walls of parks in Ward Doesn’t pertain to our department.
183, 184 made from 2007 till 2010?
2. Cost incurred to make these walls? Doesn’t pertain to our department.
3. Plants which have been List has been enclosed.
planted in these parks?
4. In which parks, boring has been done? It has been done in the Lane 5 and Lane 6 parks.
5. What was the cost incurred in boring? Boring is done through Electricity Department.
6. Are the boring pumps working now? New boring has been done in Ward 184 and
through these 10 parks will be provided water.
7. What are the swings that have been put up in Many swings haven’t been put by the Electricity
these parks? Department.
8. What are the provision for a watchman in the There is a gardener in place for the park. No
park behind Shiv Shakti Mandir and how plants have been planted in this park.
many plants have been planted in this park?
9. How will the people who have illegally The cars are parked there. To remove the same, a
occupied the park behind Shiv Shakti Mandir letter has been written to the police.
be evicted?
10. Has the F.I.R. for the same been registered? If It is not covered under the RTI act 2005.
not, what are the reasons?
11. Can the land available for parks be converted No.
into Parking area If yes, what are the
departments from where we have to take the
permissions?
12. How many parks have been converted in It has never been done.
parking areas?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The answers were not given in the right period of time. And when the reply came, it was incomplete.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“Contents of the appeal were examined. The appellant was aggrieved by non- receipt of
information from PIO. Appellant sought certain information regarding Ward No. 183 & 184 of South
Zone. Appellant was also aggrieved by parking and other problems regarding maintenance of
boundary wall in parks. PIO submitted that reply to the application has already been issued and copy
of the same has been provided to the appellant during hearing. However, the information was not
found to be complete.
Submissions of PIO and appellant were heard. Appellant sought information which was not provided
to him in mandated 30 days. As regards point No. 1&2, reviewed reply be issued and information to be
procured from Maintenance Department and supplied to appellant in 20 days. Appeal stands disposed
off accordingly.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Request MCD to give complete and proper information as they haven’t given it within 20 days.
Decision:
The First Appellate Authority had ordered that the PIO should review point 01- &
02 and procure information from the Maintenance Department and supply it to the
Appellant within 20 days. The Appellant has stated that he has not received the
information from the PIO after the order of the FAA.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information to the Appellant on queries -01 & 02
as directed by the First Appellate Authority to the Appellant before 20 December 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears 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 give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 25 December 2010. He will also send 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.
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
07 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MS)