Mr.Mohan Lal Jonwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 2 February, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Mohan Lal Jonwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 2 February, 2011
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                                  Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002994/11234
                                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002994

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                               :        Mr. Mohan Lal Jonwal,
                                                 F - 180/G - 1, Dilshad Colony

Respondent                              :        Mr. Naurang Singh

Public Information Officer & Superintending Engineer-I
Office of Superintending Engineer(WZ) – I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi

RTI application filed on : 19/05/2010
PIO replied : 05/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 12/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 21/10/2010

S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO

1. Criteria for dealing with complaints received by Criteria is decided by DMC Act

2. To which officer was the applicant’s complaint Information does not pertain to town hall
ordered to be transferred for inquiry

3. Date when the complaint was transferred to Same as above
MCD west Zone and the diary no.

   4. Reasons for not doing the right inquiry on the            Inquiry is being done on the complaint
5.     The officer with whom complaint is pending for    Jr. Engineer Sh. Dushyant Yadav, Assistant
       inquiry.                                          Engineer Sh. S P Garg
6.     Daily progress on the complaint                   Progress going on according to DMC act
7.       Present status of the complaint                 The property has been booked according to DMC

8. Detail of inquiry done on officers for delaying Not related to Building Department (WZ)
the investigation on the complaint

First Appeal:

No information has been provided for question no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Order of the FAA:

The PIO stated that the information has been provided vide letter dated 5/8/2010 and so he appeal id disposed of.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

The Appellant is aggrieved as the information provided by the PIO is unsatisfactory
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Absent;

Respondent : Mr. V. K. Agarwal, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Naurng Singh, Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer-I

The PIO has given information but is now directed to give the following information regarding the
complaint of the Appellant in the following format:

Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.

*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.

Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.

The Respondent states that the RTI application was to be answered by Mr. Dushyant Yadav, JE to whom
it was given on 10/06/2010. The respondent states that Mr. Dushyant Yadav then gave the information
only on 02/08/2010.


The Appeal is allowed
Mr. V. K. Agarwal AE(B) is directed to give the information as directed above to
the Appellant before 20 February 2011.

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 appears 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. 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 February, 2011. He will also send the information sent to the
appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the

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
02 February 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)

To, Mr. Dushyant Yadav, JE through Mr. Mr. Naurang Singh, PIO & SE-I

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information