Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.J D Kataria vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 26 April, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.J D Kataria vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 26 April, 2010
                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Club Building (Near Post Office)
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                       Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000542/7574
                                                             Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000542

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                              :       J.D. Kataria
                                               9405, Tokri Walan
                                               Azad Market
                                               New Delhi-110006

Respondent                             :       Public Information Officer & SE
                                               MCD, Sadar Paharganj Zone
                                               Idgah Road, behind Sadar Police Station
                                               New Delhi- 110006

                                               PIO & DCA
                                               MCD, Sadar Paharganj Zone
                                               Idgah Road, behind Sadar Police Station
                                               New Delhi- 110006

                                               PIO
                                               MCD, CED
                                               Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
                                               Delhi 110006

                                               PIO & DCA (FP)
                                               MCD, Office of CA-cum-FA
                                               PF Section, Town Hall, Katcha Bagh
                                               Delhi 110006

RTI application filed on               :       13/08/2009
PIO replied                            :       26/08/2009
First appeal filed on                  :       14/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order        :       30/10/2009
Second Appeal received on              :       24/02/2010

Information Sought:

1. Whether it is true that AE Ajay Chowdhury travels daily from Rajnagar Gaziabad, UP to
Sardar Paharganj zone MCD in his private car with his private driver covering a distance
of more than 40 kms one way and a total distance of 80 kms both ways, while only an
average of 40 kms is taken into regard

2. Whether it is true that he travels within his own zone in his own private car, covering a
distance of 30 kms and thus a total of 110 kms daily in his private car

3. In this regard a total of 10l petrol is utilized daily and with a cost of Rs.47 per l of petrol,
a total of Rs. 470 is spent in total daily
Page 1 of 3

4. Thus in the above regard, whether it is true that a total of Rs.22,000 on petrol is spent on
Ajay Chowdhury’s car per month. To state based on available records

5. Whether it is true that Ajay Chowdhury’s driver’s monthly salary is Rs.5000

6. Whether the expenses on the driver and the car are borne by the government? If not, then
is it borne by Ajay Chowdhury himself?

7. The total expense on the car is about Rs.27000, and other expenses on the house and
children is about Rs.25000. Thus in total expense of Rs. 52000 is borne monthly, based
on statistics. Is this true, to state with based available records

8. What is AE Ajay Chowdhury’s total salary, to state with based available records.

9. If Ajay Chowdhury’s salary is above Rs. 52000, then all my question would be thus
answered

10. If his salary is below Rs.5200 then how do the remaining expenses get covered? To
investigate and state with available records

11. For how many years is this Rs.52000 being spent by Ajay Chowdhury. The appellant
requests information for the last 5 years with proof of available records.

12. How does Ajay Chowdhury cover the remaining expenses? What are his other sources of
income? To state with proof of available records.

13. Whether its is proved that in the last 5 years that AE Ajay Chowdhury has been part of
great corruption schemes and thus amounted large amounts of cash. First in Civil Lines
zone, and now in Sardar Paharganj he has with connections of builders and mafia, taken
and still taking large amounts of bribe. To state with proof of available records.

14. Whether vigilance department is going to take any action against Ajay Chowdhry if the
accusations prove right?

15. Whether MCD is the most corrupt department?

16. Whether it is true that Ajay Chowdhury still continues to live in his ancestoral house?

17. Whether it is true, if Ajay Chowdhury a few years back bought a new house? To state the
year, and the price of the house, with proof of available records

18. Details of amount which has been withdrawn by Ajay Chowdhury from his provident
fund in MCD

19. Whether while buying the house did Ajay Chowdhury notify his zone’s personal branch,
or has he notified them till date?

20. Does Ajay Chowdhury still live in a rented house? If yes, then to state the monthly rent of
the house, with proof of available records

21. If Ajay Chowdhury has bought a house in Rajnagar, or anywhere else with his own
money, then where did he get the money from as his salary is entirely used on his
expenses? To state with proof of available records

22. All answers to be specified in Hindi.

Response of the PIO:

Transfer of RTI application dated 13/08/2009 from MCD, Vigilance Dept to PIO/CED,
PIO/S.P.Zone & PIO/DCA (GPF)

Grounds for First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO

Order of the FAA:

PIO/CED directed to supply proper reply to question No. 16 to 19 and 21 in Hindi to the
appellant within 20 working days
DCA,SP Zone is directed to supply the reply to Question No. 20 in Hindi within 20 working
days

Page 2 of 3
DCA,GPF is directed to supply the reply to question No. 18 and PIO/SP Zone is directed to reply
to question No. 1 to 13 in Hindi to the appellant within 20 working days.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Incomplete information provided by PIO.

Decision:

One of the Respondents informed the Commission that this matter has already
been heard in Decision no.CIC/SG/A/2009/003233/6775 dated 10/02/2010. The
Commission has verified the same and therefore this appeal is infructuous.

The Appeal is infructuous.

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
26 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DR)

Page 3 of 3