CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/C/2008/00755/SG/2321
Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00755/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. D.N. Srivastava,
N-96, Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
Respondent : Chief Engineer -IX & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Office of the Chief Engineer -IX,
Football Ground, Ambedkar Stadium,
Delhi Gate, Delhi.
RTI Application filed on : 23/07/2007 PIO replied : 19/09/2007 First appeal filed on : 18/06/2008 First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned. Second Appeal filed on : 13/10/2007
Details of required information:-
The Appellant had asked in RTI application regarding fund for garbage
removal/sanitation work during the financial year 2006-07 and 2007-08 state reasons of
disproportionate funding, copies of note sheets/documents/papers in support of the
information sought.
S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. What is the total amount of funds that The work of collection, segregation and
was allocated for garbage transportation of Mpl. Solid waste from
removal/sanitation work during the the West Zone to S.L.F. Bhalsawa has
financial year 2006-07? Give Zone wise been privatized since Aug. 2005. the
and ward wise allocation of funds payment to the private agency is made
during this financial year. by the MCD for the said work for the
whole West Zone. During the financial
year 2006-07, a payment of Rs.
12,07,00,777/- was made to the private
agency.
2. What is the total amount of funds that For the financial year 2007-08, a
was allocated for garbage payment of Rs. 1,88,05,879/- has been
removal/sanitation work during the made to the Private agency till May
financial year 2007-08? Give Zone wise 2007.
and ward wise allocation of funds
during this financial year.
3. Was there any disparity in allocation of The generation of Mpl. Solid Waste is
funds in different wards? If yes. State different in different Wards depending
reasons of disproportionate funding. on various factors like area of the ward.
Gentry etc.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Not Mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Absent
The appellant has stated that the reply is not complete without giving any reasons.
From the papers submitted it is not possible for the Commission to understand how the
information is incomplete.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 March, 2009
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)