Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 June, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 June, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                          Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000847/12710
                                                                  Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000847

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Mr. Harish Kumar,
                                            628/3 Shivaji Road,
                                            Pul Mithai, New Delhi- 110006

Respondent                           :       Dr. M. K. Pal
                                             Public Information Officer & Dy, MHO(Coordination)
                                     Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                     19th Floor, Civic Centre,
                                             Minto Road, New Delhi

RTI application filed on             :      14/09/2010
PIO replied on                       :      3/12/2010
First Appeal filed on                :      18/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order of   :      12/11//2010
Second Appeal received on            :      29/03/2011

Q.N                        Query                                       PIO`s Response
 o
   1   What is the time duration for which an officer A file can be retained by a public official for a
   .   can keep a file?                               maximum of 7 days.

   2   Is there any special power given to the Dy.      There is no special power to retain files.
   .   MHO to retain files for more than the allowed
       time limit?
   3   How many files are pending with the Dy.          Photocopies of the files marked to the Dy.
   .   MHO in the last 5 months and the reasons for     MHO for the last 5 months were enclosed.
       the same?
   4   The detail of penalties for non performance of   There are no such penalties imposed.
   .   work in accordance with the directions of the    Deducing reasons is beyond the RTI Act.
       Commissioner/ MCD
   5   Detail of action taken against mistakes made
                                            No such actions have been taken against him
   .   by the Dy. MHO and the reasons for inaction.
                                            and adducing evidence for the same is not
                                            within the purview of the RTI Act.
   6   The details of work performed by the The details of the dengue containment work
   .   Dy.MHO                               conducted by the Dy. MHO were enclosed

   7   The photocopies of diary/ dispatch registers Photocopies can be collected from the office
   .   of pending files.

   8   Is there any biometric machine installed in Yes, but it is currently under repair.
   .   the office of Dy. MHO/ malaria at G-74
       Connaught Place
   9   The time limit for disposal of cases by the 7 days
   .   Dy. MHO

   1   Photocopy of the log book recording the Photocopies can be collected from the office
   0   inspections and visits by the Dy. MHO for
            the last 5 months
     1     Photocopy of the movement register                                   Photocopies can be collected from the office
     1
     .

Grounds for the First Appeal:

No reply received to RTI application within 30 days.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appeal was disposed off asking the Dy. MH (Malaria/ APIO) to provide the required information
to the Dy. MHO (Coordination) within 2 weeks and the information would be given to the Appellant
by the MHO (Coordination/PIO) within a week after that.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

The PIO/ Dy. MHO violated the order of FAA and did not provide complete information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar;

Respondent : Dr. M. K. Pal, Public Information Officer & Dy, MHO(Coordination);

The PIO has provided the information to the Appellant. Information has also been provided
after the order of the FAA. The Commission notes that the information was about 2140 pages and
wishes to point out that when such a large number of pages are involved it would be better to inspect
the records and take appropriate pages.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

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
06 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Rh)