CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000548/7486
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000548
Appellant : Mr. Mohit Sharma,
59-D, Pocket-J & K,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095
Respondent :1) Mr. C. B. Singh
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer-I,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
G. T. Road, Shahdara (North) Zone),
Delhi-110032
2) Mr. K. P. Singh
Public Information Officer
Superintending Engineer-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara (North) Zone), Keshav Chowk
Delhi-110053
RTI application filed on : 25/09/2009
PIO replied : 12/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 16/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 13/01/2010
Second Appeal Received on : 02/03/2010
Sl.No Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Provide the list of all the Construction List attached (2 pages)
works/Development works/Repair works carried out in
the area of Dilshad Colony form 01/01/2008 to till
date.
2. Number of projects/works started/ completed from a) to g). Mentioned in the
01/01/2008 to till date. Appellant sought details (from attached list.
point (a) to (n) ) of these projects/works.:
a) Work Order No.
b) Name of the contractor h). These works carried out on
c) Date of starting recommendation of area
d) Date of completion councilor, M.L.A and R.W.A
e) Rate at which work awarded, representative.
f) Sanctioned amount
g) Head of account i) to m)Required copies of the
h) Basis for decision to undertake this work documents of these works will
i) Copy of sketch of work, be provided after receiving
Page 1 of 3
j) Copy of Layout sketch of work applicable charges under RTI
k) Copy of details of estimates Act.
l) Copy of measurement book (both abstract
entries & record entries)
m) If there is any guarantee clause in the contract,
copy of that portion of the contract which
mentions this guarantee clause and the
conditions in which this clause can be invoked.
n) Names of the Junior Engineer, Assistant
Engineer, Executive Engineer and
Superintending Engineer who are related to this
work.
3. Appellant wanted inspection of above works : a) to c) Appellant may inspect
a. Measurement Book the documents of these works
b. Details of Estimates & in any working day after 02:00
c. Sketches PM
4. Appellant sought date, time, and venue for inspection ----As above-----
of the above files/papers/documents.
PIO's Reply:
The RTI application was transferred to Respondent no. 2 vide a letter dated 27/01/2010.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"that the information has been provided to the appellant as desired him on the basis of records
available in the office regarding lifting of sample in the presence of appellant, the PIO is directed
to officer an opportunity to the appellant for any on going project in future as and when the
sample is scheduled to be lifted so that the same could be done in the presence of appellant."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete information.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Mohit Sharma;
Respondent (1): Mr. C. B. Singh, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I;
Respondent (2): Mr. M. M. Khan, EE(M-III) on behalf of Mr. K. P. Singh, PIO & SE-II;
The information sought by the Appellant pertained to PIO/SE-I and PIO/SE-II. PIO/SE-I
provided the information relating to his area to the Appellant on 12/10/2009 but did not
transferred the application to the PIO/SE-II. The RTI application was transferred to PIO/SE-II
only on 27/01/2010 and hence the PIO/SE-II provided the information to the Appellant on
03/03/2010. The PIO/SE-II claims that he has sent the information by UPC on 13/02/2010.
It is apparent that PIO/SE-I failed to transfer the RTI application to PIO/SE-II. He did not seek
the assistance of the PIO/SE-II either. The reason for the delay was clearly this lapse. PIO/SE-I
Mr. C. B. Singh states that he had joined Shahdara North Zone in August 2009 and was not
aware of the area of Dilshad Colony. He therefore states that he had sought the assistance of
Executive Engineer (M-I) Mr. A. K. Dixit at that time and Mr. A. K. Dixit failed to inform him
that part of Dilshad Colony is under the Jurisdiction of PIO/SE-II.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Appellant states that the information has been provided to him.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the deemed PIO Executive Engineer (M-I) Mr. A. K. Dixit within 30 days as required by
the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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 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. A. K. Dixit will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20 May
2010 at 12.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given
the information to the appellant.
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.
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
16 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
CC:
To,
Mr. A. K. Dixit Executive Engineer (M-I) through Mr. C. B. Singh, PIO & SE-I;
Page 3 of 3