Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Devinder Kumar Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 12 January, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Devinder Kumar Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 12 January, 2009
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                   Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                 Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
                        Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                    Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01461/SG/0993
                                              Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01461/

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Devinder Kumar Sharma,
D- 132,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi – 110060.

Respondent 1 : Mr. Raj Pal Singh,
Addl. Commissioner& PIO,
Engg. Deparmant (HQ),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Chandini Chowk,
Delhi – 110006.


RTI application filed on           :   28/04/2008
PIO replied                        :   07/05/2008
First appeal filed on              :   22/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order    :   19/06/2008
Second Appeal filed on             :   01/08/2008

The appellant had attached 102 photocopies of certain documents which he
claimed were photocopies of certain MCD papers. He wanted the PIO to

The PIO replied.

Reference your application under RTI Act, 2005 dated 06/05/2008 asking for
certified copies of letters/Documents provided by you alongwith your application.

It does not cover under the provision of Section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Name of the First Appellate Authority.
Sh. Ravi Dass, Engineer-in-Chief,
Room No- 71, Town Hall, Chandini Chowk, MCD, Delhi – 06.

The First Appellate Authority ordered:

“On scrutiny of the documents which reveals that ADC (Engg.), PIO, vide
letter No. HC/RTI/Engg/HQ/2008/2641 dated 07/05/2008 has informed that RTI does
not cover under the provision of section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005. This information has
also been accepted by the appellant and as such no further action is required against
appeal.”

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Rajpal Singh PIO
The respondent states that the information sought is very voluminous.
The Commission directs to facilitate the appellant’s inspection of files if he desires.

Decision:

The appeal is disposed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
12 January, 2009.

(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)