CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002824/6141
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002824
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Narayan Singh,
335 Mangolpur Kalan, Sector 2, Rohini,
New Delhi- 110085.
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Ailawadi
Public Information Officer & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Superintending Engineer-II
Rohini Zone, Sector-5, Rohini
RTI application filed on : 26/08/2009
PIO replied : 12/10/2009, Transferred on 08/09/2009.
First appeal filed on : 29/09/2009, Transferred on 05/10/2009.
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed.
Second Appeal received on : 04/11/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 25/11/2009
Hearing Held on : 30/12/2009
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether a strong drainage system (pukka) Mangolpur Kala village had come under
had been built in Mangolpur Kala Village, the PIO’s department’s jurisdiction in
Najafgarh zone and Rohini zone. May 2007. No information if available
prior to that date.
2. The way water was discharged from the When the Mangolpur Kala village had
homes of Mangolpur Kala village especially come under PIO’s jurisdiction, most of
barsati homes when the pukka drainage was the drains had been constructed and the
not built. rain water flowed into it.
3. The reasons for not constructing a pukka ‘This is not true.’
drainage at Mangolpur Kala village when
other zones of Delhi had their own pukka
drainage system.
4. The total money released for the Information about the total expenses
construction and maintenance of the pukka incurred is not available with the
drainage system in Mangolpur Kala village department.
during the time period 1990 to 2006.
5. Whether MCD had taken charge of the The matter comes under the purview of
overall maintenance and upkeep of the drain the Cleaning Department.
after its construction
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not enclosed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by PIO. PIO’s reply pertained to May 2007 whereas the
Appellant had sought information for the time period 1990 to 2006.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Narayan Singh;
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Ailawadi, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
The Appellant has sought information which is of a very long period and there has been
some mix-up in the MCD because of which the information has been provided late. The
Appellant has sought an information relation for a very long period relating to the period 1990-
2007. The PIO explains that since there was transfer of the area form different zones the
information is available in different places. He gave part of the information on 13/10/2009 and
subsequently on 14/10/2009.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
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 is apparent 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 15 January 2010.
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
30 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)