CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001361/8363
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001361
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Inderjeet Singh Gambhir
13A/14 W.E.A.
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The Assistant Commissioner
Karol Bagh Zone,
Nigam Bhawan, DB Gupta Road
Anand Parbat Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005
RTI application filed on : 10/12/2009
PIO replied : 8/01/2010
First appeal filed on : Not mentioned
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 16/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 26/05/2010
The Appellant wanted information associated with the Tehbazari sites situated on the road starting from
pusa road to new Rohtak road.
Sl Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Provide opportunity to the Applicant to inspect files and all Presently no record is available
official notes, which were associated with decision to develop in this zone.
tehbazari site on the road constructed upon the drain after
coving it from pusa road to New Rohtak road.
2. Furnish details of the instructions/guidelines and condition No approved car bazaar is
under which the site were allotted to public under Tehbazari existed at DB Gupta road to new
scheme on the road constructed upon the drain covering it Rohtak road.
from pusa road to new rohtak road, Gurunanak Market and
car Bazaar.
3. Furnish information about the total number of Thebazari sites Total number 239 of Tehbazari
so developed in gurunanak market and car bazaar. sites are present exist with the
Gurunanak market.
4. Furnish specific dimensions of the area allotted to each There is no site allotted to a
allottee and inform whether anywhere in the Gurunanak single person.
Market or car bazaar two sites were allotted to a single
Allottee.
5. Kindly inform whether amalgamation sub division of
Thebazari site is allowed under any circumstances/ No
Page 1 of 3
conditions.
6. Provide details of procedure under which a tehbazari holder/ Yes
Allottee can sell/ transfer rights/ Site to third party.
7. Kindly provide inspection report/ inspection reports of Report can be provided after
inspectors/ survey carried out to check the possession of the taking Rs. 2 per copy.
tehbazari sites are with the original allottees only.
8. Inform the procedure to be adopted by the MCD/DDA/ Gov. Not Available
Authorities if the possession of tehbazari sites is not to be
with original allottee.
Ground of First Appeal:
Not mentioned.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
PIO was directed to produce relevant records for inspection by the Appellant. Appellant was to be
given records identified by him.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Order of FAA not complied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Inderjeet Singh Gambhir;
Respondent : Absent;
The appellant has stated that after the order of the FAA he was asked to meet Mr. Om Prakash
who sits in Room no. 305. Mr. Om Prakash asked the appellant to come on 25/02/2010 for the
inspection. When the appellant went on 25/02/2010 at the agreed time Mr. Om Prakash was not
available. Mr. Om Prakash gave the appellant mobile number 9811034203 of a colleague Mr. Ashok
Kumar and advised him to contact him for the information. After a few days when he contacted Mr.
Om Prakash again Mr. Om Prakash stated that not a single file relating tehbazari in Guru Nanak Market
or Maharaja Rana Pratap market was available and he filed a filed a police complaint at Karol Bagh
Police Station. The appellant demanded the copy of the said FIR from Mr. Om Prakash and inspite of
repeated attempts no copy of the RTI was given to him. Thus no tehbazari records have been shown to
the appellant nor any evidence that FIR has been filed for all the lost/stolen files. There have been a
number of cases of this nature where no tehbazari records are shown to appellants and subsequently it
is claimed that these are missing.
It also appears that the appellant has been made to make a very large number of visits without being
provided any reasonable information. The Commission therefore awards a compensation to the
appellant of Rs.2000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing this matter. It is
significant that even before the FAA no statement was made that the records are not available. Thus the
FAA’s order has also not been implemented.
Mr. R. S. Kataria, Administrative Officer was present at the hearing of the FAA who had assured the
appellant before the FAA that he would ensure that the inspection of the relevant files given to the
appellant.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO to either give an inspection of the relevant files to the
appellant on 12 July 2010 at 10.00am at the office of the PIO. In case the files are not their a copy of
the FIR for the missing files will be given to the appellant on that day.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- is sent to the appellant before 30
July 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within
30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt
that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the
information to be given.
It appears that the 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 July 2010 at 11.30am 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
01 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ARG)
Page 3 of 3