CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003542/10741
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003542
Relevant Factsemerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Vaid,
7/76, B Bhim Gali,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara
Delhi-32
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Assistant Commissioner ,
Office of Asst. Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi,
Shah South Zone, Near Karkardooma Court
Shahdra Delhi
RTI application filed on : 02/06/2010
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : 23/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 11/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 15/12/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information from Asst. Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone:
1. Inform the number of vacancies in the post of ‘Safai Karmachari’ between 2005 to June, 2010
after the death or retirement of workers. Provide with the list of the vacancies.
2. Specify the number of ad hoc workers appointed on daily wages in such posts. Provide with the
list of the workers.
3. Specify the name of the authority governing the ad hoc workers. Also provide with the copy of all
the orders.
4. Specify whether all the appointments on ad hoc basis between 2005 to 2010 are conducted by
Superintendent or not. Provide with the copies of all the orders by superintendent.
5. Specify the appointment of Poonam and Sunil as ad hoc workers, as conducted by Superintendent
Bacchulal are under his powers or under the powers of Asst. Commissioner.
6. Furnish with the copies of the appointment of thw two ad hoc workers as conducted by Bachulal
and also mention whether they are Senior ad hoc workers or not.
7. Mention if the powers of D.D.O. are with Asst. Commissioner then the reason for superintendent’s
signatures in the documents of this office. Also mention the reason for not giving reference of
Asst. Commissioner.
Reply of PIO:
Not replied.
First Appeal:
No information given by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
FAA ordered, “After considering the matter the Sanitation superintendent has been directed to give
requisite information to the appellant in respect of two employees within a period of 10 days. The
PIO/Asstt. Commissioner will ensure the compliance.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information given by PIO.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information has been
provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/Assistant Commissioner is directed to provide the information as directed by the
First Appellate Authority to the appellant before 20 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO/AC and Deemed PIO/Sanitation Inspector within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and the Deemed PIO are 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 PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice
is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on them.
The PIO/AC and Sanitation Inspection will present themselves before the Commission at the above
address on 27 January 2011 at 11.00AM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the information
sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent 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 them.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
31 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)