CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001770/8821
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001770
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Girish Dhawan
House No 52, Bhai Parmanand colony,
Delhi – 110009
Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Malik
Deemed Public Information Officer & EE(M-III)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Superintending Engineer
Civil Lines Zone, Rajpur Road,
Delhi – 110054
RTI application filed on : 08/03/2010
PIO replied : 05/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 26/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 25/06/2010
Sl. Information Sought (with reference to work order and measurement book dated Reply of the
01/03/2008 in ward no 72). PIO
1. The nature of the work carried out by the department. Information
2. Work order serial number. sought is too
3. The date when the work was first started. voluminous.
The Appellant
4. The date when the work was finished/will be finished. can carry out
5. The progress of the work. inspection of
files on any
6. Name of the contractor. working day
7. The nature of improvement of the road being built. during office
8. Details of the budget and the fund allocated. hours.
9. The details of the budget allocated for the slum areas.
10 The Appellant wanted to take a sample of the construction material used. The
. sample had to be taken from any random place in the presence of the Appellant.
Name, date and time of the place be intimated to the Appellant.
11 The area and departments being handled by the Assistant Engineers and Junior
. Engineers in the last 5 years. The no of complaints received by the MCD and
against the MCD in the High Court.
12 Whether any guarantee clause was mentioned in the contract that was signed.
. Details of the quality control procedure adopted by the department.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA concurred with the stand taken by the PIO that the information sought was very voluminous in
nature and therefore the Appellant should physically inspect the files. However, the FAA ruled that the PIO
must provide information to the queries 9 to 12 of the Appellant within 15 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided to the Appellant even after the FAA’s order was still unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Malik, Deemed Public Information Officer & EE(M-III);
The respondent states that the person responsible for giving the reply late was Mr. Panna Lal the then
Executive Engineer. The RTI application has been file don 08/03/2010 and the respondent informed the
appellant that since the information was voluminous he should come and inspect the records. It is impossible
to imagine how this simple statement could not be sent within 30 days of receiving of the RTI application. The
respondent shows that the information regarding query-9, 10, 11 & 12 has been sent to the appellant on
08/06/2010. The PIO’s contention that the information is voluminous and it would divert the resources of the
public authority considerably appears to be correct and his taking shelter under Section 7(9) appears to be
reasonable.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed
PIO Mr. Panna Lal the then Executive Engineer within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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. It appears that the deemed 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.
Mr. Panna Lal the then Executive Engineer will present himself before the Commission at the above address
on 08 September 2010 at 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the
information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO
is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
03 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)
CC:
To, Mr. Panna Lal the then Executive Engineer through Mr. Sanjay Malik, Deemed Public
Information Officer & EE(M-III);
Page 2 of 2