CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002119/5246
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002119
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jasvinder Singh
RZ - 79, Manas Kunj,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059.
Respondent : Mr. K.C.Meena
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer – II (West Zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Suptdg. Engineer – II (West Zone)
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 22/12/2008 PIO replied : 01/04/2009 First appeal filed on : 27/04/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 28/05/2009 Second Appeal received on : 28/08/2009
The Appellant has sought following information regarding a street which has been constructed in
the back lane of the Appellant’s house on 20/12/2008.
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Copy of all the relevant documents. The Appellant had been requested to deposit
Rs.500/- for the photocopies.
2. Request to inspect the samples All the samples of the material used in the
which had been used in making of said work had been got tested in the Mpl. Lab
the street. and there was no provision in the agreement
for taking further sample.
3. Whether there was any provision to The work had been carried out as per site
increase the level of the street. If no condition and provision of the estimate.
then reason for not dumping the
garbage from the street.
4. Whether there was any provision for Neither there was any provision for closing
closing the existing Nallah in the the drain nor the same had been closed.
said street.
5. Whether there was any provision for The slope had been given as per the condition
making one side slope on the street of the lane. No special method was adopted to
for flowing water. give slope in front of RZ_79, Manas Kunj.
6. Reason for laying too much material No such practice was adopted.
in front of some houses in the said
street.
First Appeal:
Not enclosed.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order concurred with the reply of the PIO. The FAA further stated that the query
raised by the Appellant during the hearing should be treated as complaint.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Jasvinder Singh;
Respondent : Mr. K.C.Meena, Public Information Officer & Superintending Engineer – II (WZ);
Mr. Manoj Kumar, APIO & EE;
The information has been provided to the Appellant on 01/04/2009. Since the RTI
application was file don 22/12/2008 the information should have been provided by 22/01/2009.
The reply has been given 67 days late. The Respondent states that the person responsible for
providing the information late is Mr.Manoj Kumar APIO&EE.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
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 APIO Mr. Manoj Kumar 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 APIO’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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 November, 2009.
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
28 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)