CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV,Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00260/2082
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00260
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar
628/3, Shivaji Road,
Pul Mithai, Delhi – 100006
Respondent : Assistant Commissioner
& Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Assistant Commissioner
Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
Idgah Road, Near Sadar Police Station,
New Delhi – 110002
RTI filed on : 25/08/2008
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First appeal filed on : 26/09/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 23/10/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 05/12/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information from MCD regarding illegal encroachment at Pul
Mithai, New Delhi. In his 19 queries he had asked certified copies of list of illegal
encroachments, video C.D., photographs as per the order of Mr. J.P.Agarwal the then Dy.
Commissioner vide his letter no.D-935&936/DC/SPZ/2007 dated 7/08/2007 to S.H.O. Bara
Hindu Rao., Actions taken by the department, copies of correspondence to AC(SPZ), list of
officials/officer are at sadar pahar ganj zone under general category, copies of file noting in
respect of Mr. Roshan Lal, L.D.C. and photocopies of various letters.
PIO’s Reply:
Not mentioned.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
The First appellate authority ordered that “I have gone through the appeal and relying on the
statement of appellant that he has not received information in respect of ID application filed
on 25/08/2008 vide receipt no. 4426059 and G8 AZ-2031529 is S.P.Zone. PIO/AC/SPZ is
directed to supply the requisite information to the appellant as per record under RTI Act
within 07 working days.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar
Respondent : Mr. Darshan Kumar PIO
The information has been given very late-on 2/2/2009. This is also incomplete.
The PIO states that some of the information was supplied late by Mr. Ashok Verma Head
Clerk. It is also curious that the PIO who is a senior officer claims that his job is only to act
as a courier and push papers and appears to claim no administrative responsibility.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will facilitate an inspection of the required files and give the copies of the
information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26th February 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)