CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000778/7702
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000778
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Krishan Gupta,
5/9, Khicharipur,
Delhi - 110091
Respondent : Dr. N. R. Tuli
Public Information Officer &Deputy Health Officer,
MCD, Health Department,
Shahdara (South) Zone,
Karkardooma, Shahdara,
Delhi – 110032
RTI application filed on : 03/11/2009
PIO replied : 07/12/2009; 04/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 16/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 18/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 25/03/2010
Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/04/2010
Hearing held on : 12/05/2010
Regarding the Gazipur crematorium land owned by the MCD that was given to MCD to maintain
the same vide an MOU that was signed between Gazipur crematorium ground ‘sudhaar’
committee and the DHO and DC of MCD, Shahdara, South Zone.
Sl Information Sought Reply of PIO on 07/12/2009 Reply of PIO on
No. 04/01/2010
1. Prior to 2003, in whose account Prior to 2003, there was no Zonal Health
were the donations and rent of policy regarding the Department has
sanskaar stores going? Was the maintenance etc of Gazipur given the
same being deposited into the crematorium ground. Hence, information in this
account of MCD? no related records are available regard.
with the department.
2. By signing the MOU in 2003, In 2003, MCD, for the first
why did MCD take up the time, prepared a policy through
responsibility when it has taken the Health Deptt HQ for better
up the audit under point 15? maintenance of Shamshan
Ghat by NGO. Under the
policy, Gazipur Shamshaan
ghat was handed over to
Gazipur Shamshaan Sudhaar
Committee. The promises
made under the MOU are
Page 1 of 4
binding on both the parties.
This is the responsibility of the
officials of the NGO/
Committee also that they send
their records to MCD so that
MCD can audit them.
3. After taking responsibility on Same as answered above. It is
2003, why did MCD create the responsibility of the
opportunities for scams by not officials of the committee that
keeping accounts, audits etc they put an end to the scam.
between 2003 and 2006?
4. Was such a scam, in which no In 2003, after getting
accounting was done from 2003 permission from the authorized
to 2009, possible without the official, on the basis of area,
tacit support of the DHO? the MOU was enforced after
obtaining signatures of Sri
Deepak Aggarwal from the
side of the Gazipur Shamshaan
Sudhaar Committee, dy.
Commissioner, Shahdara
(South) Zone from the side of
MCD, and Dy. Health Officer.
5. Under the DRI Act 2001 From the side of the
Appeal no. 2538 dated Committee, a letter was
03/11/2009, DHO stated that obtained from Sri Sanjay,
Sosapathi was going to the Advocate, in which he
High Court. What does this informed that Sosapathi is
have to do with the DHO and filing an appeal against the ex-
on what basis did he give this parte Order
statement? CIC/SG/A/2009/001783
because NGO/ Committee was
not made party.
6. Regarding CIC Decision No. Copy of this ex parte Order of
CIC/SG/A/2009/001783/4812 CIC was made available to
on the 2003 MOU, who has the you. The department had no
authority to not comply with intention that the Order should
the same? not be complied with. In this
Did MCD obtain a Stay Order regard, through the
from the High Court or did it Department's letter no.
file an Appeal? If no, then what DHO/Sh(S)/09/1077, dated
action has been taken on the 06/10/09, you were informed
Application given to the DC of the Order and Information
under Section 20 of RTI Act? C'ner, CIC and the higher
officials of the Deptt were also
sent the letters informing the
same.
7. Why is the investigation Investigation regarding this This information
regarding this scam not being scam does not need to be done does not come under
done by Director Vigilance, by Director Vigilance because Section 2(f) of the
Delhi? the Deptt is informing the HQ, RTI Act.
Page 2 of 4
Health Deptt of the
developments in the same.
8. Is the delay in taking action The allegations made by you This information
aimed at allowing Sosapathi to are false and without any basis. does not come under
freely keep on receiving Rs 30 From 2003 to 2008, you Section 2(f) of the
to Rs 40 per month? yourself (applicant) were the RTI Act.
Jt. Secretary and then the Dy.
Chairman of the Committee.
During this period too, no
information was given to the
Deptt regarding the scam.
9. If the MOU has been renewed The file has been sent to the The copy of the
in 2008, then give a copy of the HQ for the related MOU is enclosed.
same. When there was no investigations. From 2006 to
contractor from 2006 to 2008, 2008, you yourself (applicant)
then how did Sosapathi receive were the Dy. Chairman of the
the money? Has the scam been Committee and neither you,
planned up in the new MOU nor the other officials made
too? any such information
available.
10. When will the scam regarding The developments regarding This information
the illegal acquisition of Gazipur Shamshaan Sudhaar does not come under
donations coming in for the Committee have been sent to Section 2(f) of the
betterment of MCD put to an the HQ. RTI Act.
end? Which official is
responsible for the scam?
11. What investigation will be done Same as answer to query 10. This information
for the recovery of the scam does not come under
money? Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act.
12. By when will investigation be Same as answer to query 10. This information
done for the recovery of the does not come under
scam money? Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Dy MHO (Coordination)/ PIO is directed to collect the information from DHO/ shahdara (S)
Zone.
DC Shahdara (S) Zone/ PIO Shahdara (S) is requested to provide information to the Applicant
within a week in respect to query 6.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Same as grounds for First Appeal.
Page 3 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Krishan Gupta;
Respondent: Dr. N. R. Tuli, Public Information Officer &Deputy Health Officer;
The basic issue which the appellant is raising is that a cremation ground has been given to
a private society on the basis of a MOU. The appellant is highlighting a fact that the conditions
of the MOU have been violated and even the basic consideration of auditing the accounts is not
being done by MCD. It is indeed unfortunate that public authorities are giving up their
responsibilities and handling over public assets to private parties who are probably profiting by
this handing over of public assets. MCD is accepting that this is indeed the condition and this
Commission does not have any jurisdiction to get a correction to this. The Commission
appreciates the appellant’s endeavor to highlight wrong and arbitrary practices being followed by
MCD. The Commission can only hope that MCD would try and ensure that the original
conditions of MOU are properly followed. It is unfortunate that public authorities are taking a
position that after the give over of the public assets to private bodies they are helpless since even
the minimal service being offered is likely to be discontinued.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided.
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
12 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DR)
Page 4 of 4