CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000179/11746Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000179
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mahir Raza
R/o House No.8165/66, Chimni Mill,
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr. Bhagwan Singh
Public Information Officer & Dy. Municipal Secretary
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Municipal Secretary Office,
Town Hall, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 25/09/2010
PIO replied : 08/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 21/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 30/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 17/01/2011
Sr. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Name of development work got done from the Does not pertain to this office
councilor fund in the last 3 years in Ward no.
88, S.P. Zone, MCD.
2. What amount was spent from the councilor As above.
funds on those development works in the last
about 3 years.
3. How many meetings of MCD were attend by Sh. Mohd. lmran Ismile, Municipal Councilor,
Sh.. lmran Ismail of MCD Councilor from wardWard No. 88, attended 84 meetings out of 88
No. 88 S.P. Zone, in the last 3 years. meetings during the period from 24/4/2007 to
08/10/2010.
4. How many questions he put in those meeting? Sh. Mohd. Imran Ismile has put 15 questions
during this period.
5. What amount is sanctioned to each MCD Does not pertain to this office.
Councilor in last 3 years.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“I have gone through the appeal. It revealed that the application transferred from Engg. (HQ), was
forwarded to EE(M)/SPZ under ID No. 367/TE/SE/SPZ. The reply to this application was sent to
applicant vide no. D-1410/SE/SPZ/2010 dt. 21.10.10. Inspite of that please find enclose herewith the
photocopy of the same reply. You are accordingly advised to inspect the relevant record.
As for as the reply supplied by the Dy. Municipal Secretary is concerned, appellant is advised to file
the Ist appeal before the Municipal Secretary being the appellate authority in this matter, the same has
been mentioned by the Dy. Municipal Secretary in his reply.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on March 31, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahir Raza;
Respondent : Mr. Bhagwan Singh, Public Information Officer & Dy. Municipal Secretary; Mr.
Shafeeq Ahmed, AE(M-I) SP Zone; Mr. Vivek Jain, Assistant Chief Accountant; Mr. B. B. Bajaj,
EE(P-II), 10th Floor Civic Center, New Delhi;
“The Appellant had sought information on the amount of councilor’s funds in ward no. 88 in
SP Zone as per query 1, 2 & 5. It is claimed that this is maintained by the AE(M-I) in SP Zone. Mr.
Shafeeq Ahmad, AE(M-I) & Deemed PIO states that he maintains it in a register. He states that he
received the RTI application on 07/10/2010 and a letter was sent to the Appellant on 15/10/2010
asking the Appellant to inspect the records. He has no explanation why he did not provide the
photocopy of the register being maintained by him. Subsequently no information has been provided to
the Appellant and though the appellant did an inspection he was not able to understand what was spent
out of the councilor’s fund. The information on the councilor’s fund and its expenditure has been
ordered to be provided suo-moto by the Commission to the MCD.
It appears that Mr. Shafeeq Ahmed, AE(M-I) & Deemed PIO did not supply the information to the
Appellant. The information has been brought before the Commission and given to the Appellant
before the Commission.”
Decision dated March 31, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information has been provided before the Commission.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr.
Shafeeq Ahmed, AE(M-I) & Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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. It appears that the deemed 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.
Mr. Shafeeq Ahmed, AE(M-I) & Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 28 April 2011 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on April 28, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahir Raza;
Respondent: Mr. Shafeeq Ahmed, AE (M-I) SP Zone.
The Respondent has given the entire information to the Appellant after collating the same, as admitted
by the Appellant. The Respondent has given an explanation that he was on leave when the Appellant
came for inspection and hence a proper inspection was not conducted. The explanation of the
Respondent appears reasonable and hence the penalty proceedings against him are being dropped.
The Appellant has complained to the Information Commissioner that the Corporator Mohammad
Imran Ismail has threatened him with physical harm since he has sought the information about the
spending of Corporator’s funds by the Corporator.
The Commission suggests that the SHO of Sadar Bazar Police Station may take the complaint of the
Appellant and assess if there is any risk to the Appellant. If there is any threat or risk to the Appellant,
the police should ensure that adequate protection is provided to the Appellant.
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
April 28, 2011
CC: SHO,
Thana Sadar Bazar (through the Appellant Mr. Mahir Raza).
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AK)