CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002983/6355
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002983
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Chatter Singh Yadav
S/o Sh Amar Singh Yadav
D 535/32, Street No. 13, Near Mamta Nursing Home,
Ashok Nagar,
Delhi – 110093
Respondent : Mr. Nanak Chand
APIO & ADH
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Department of Horticulture, Shahdara North Zone,
Kashav Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 31/07/2009
PIO replied : 28/08/2009
First appeal filed on : 31/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 09/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 26/11/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 09/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 11/01/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. No. of tenders issued by the department for the Attached as table no. 1
year 2008-2009
2. For the same period how many tenders were As above.
quoted at a lower price? Which contractors were
hired and by what percentage was their estimate
less?
3. How many tenders were sent to quality control Tenders of amounts greater than Rs 2
and what percentage of tenders could be sent Lakhs are given to the CTE and those of
there? lesser value are not given.
4. Why were some tenders not sent and what As above.
authority was responsible for the same?
5. Which tender works were checked by quality As above.
control for the aforementioned period?
6. How many swings were put up in the park for the
66 swings were put up in Shahdara North
same period? Zone for the period 2008-2009.
7. What was the expenditure and the standard of the
The expenditure was sanctioned by the
swings put up in the park and which authority
competent authorities after the
confirmed the same. measurements were entered into the test
check register. The Assistant Directors
was Sh Nanakchand and Sh Narpat Singh
and the Dy. Director was Sh Ranvir
Singh.
8. Details of budget head and those quotations The information would be provided upon
exceeding Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/-. payment of Rs. 1200/- as photocopying
charges. This was subject to the time and
convenience of the Accounts department.
9. According to budget head quotation for 2008- There was no specific provision for
2009 how much was received and how did it budget head quotation. It was decided by
change with the new budget head? Details any Accounting Head according to need.
(including RR) as to who had the authority to
change the budget head.
10. Details as to how much money could be used per As above.
day from the interim money and what authorities
were responsible for over expenditure?
11. Photocopies of letters numbering ADH/SH North Not available with the department as the
2007- 884 dated 18/09/2007 and ADH/SH North case had been sent to the concerned
2007- 886 dated 18/09/2007. departments.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply given by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that after discussion by the PIO and the Appellant, it was found that most of the
information furnished was as per the query of the Appellant and that the copies of the files desired by
the Appellant under query no. 11 may be provided once the file came back to the department. Thus the
FAA disposed off the appeal.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Chatter Singh Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. Nanak Chand, APIO & ADH;
The PIO has not given attested copies of the documents supplied by him. He has also not given
the copy of the file required by the appellant at query-11. This was specifically ordered by the FAA.
He has also not offered inspection of the files required by the appellant in his RTI application. In
response to queries-8&9 of the appellant the PIO has sent a letter on the 31st day asking the appellant
to deposit Rs.1200/- for photocopies. The PIO is complete unjustified in this demand since on the 30th
day he should have given the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as described above to the appellant before
25 January 2010. He will also facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on
19 January 2010 at 11.00am. He will give photocopies of the records that the appellant wants upto 300
pages free of cost.
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
11 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PS)