CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000583/12326
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000583
Appellant : Mr. Nerendra Singh Negi
B 1099 JJ Colony,
Sawada Ghewra,
New Delhi - 110081
Respondent : Mr. Rambir Singh Chhikara
Deemed PIO & Sanitary Inspector
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The Asst. Commissioner,
Nazafgarh Zone,
Over Head Water Tank,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2010
PIO replied : not received
First Appeal filed on : 21/02/2011
Hearing Notice Issued on : 06/04/2011
Date of Hearing : 10/05/2011
Information Sought:-
The appellant wants the following information:-
1) How many public toilets are there in JJ Colony Sawda Delhi-81 (Ward no. 30) and in which block they
are situated.
2) Who is responsible for the cleaniness and maintainence of these toilets. How many people have been
appointed for the same. Also tell their duty timings?
3) what amount is given for these toilets to the MCD or Delhi Govt. or other agency per month. And how
it is spended.
4) what amount is charged for using these toilets. If the using is free of cost than by whose permission
caretaker charges the amount. Whether the amount charged is deposited in the account of the MCD or not.
Provide the complete information for the same.
5) whether the caretaker who is working has been appointed by your department. If yes, provide the
information about the same.
6) At some places in JJ Colony the toilet are used as parking place for rickshaw and auto rickshaw and in
some places animals are reared. This all creates problem for the people. And at some places the
agriculturing activity has been done which creates problem in rainy season as lot of insects gets the place
to live. Who is responsible for this in your department. Whether the action would be taken against the
responsible person.
7) Toilet situated in K Block JJ Colony Sawda , the care taker takes the money for the using. If someone
refuses to give the money they use abusing language. Whether any action would be taken against them by
your department. Provide the information for the same.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No information was provided by PIO.
Reply from the PIO:
Not replied.
FAA's Order:-
During the hearing the appellant averted that the PIO has not furnished information within prescribed
period so far. The PIO is directed to furnish the requisite information within 7 days positively to the
appellant.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Grounds for Second Appeal:-
The appellant was not provided with the reply by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Nerendra Singh Negi
Respondent: Mr. Rambir Singh Chhikara, Deemed PIO & Sanitary Inspector
The respondent states that he sent the information to appellant on 3.3.2011. The appellant admits that he
has received it and that he is satisfied. The Respondent Deemed PIO Mr. Rambir Singh Chhikara admits
that he received the RTI Application on 7.10.2010 and is not able to give any reasonable explanation for
not providing the information before 4.11.2010.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to appellant on 3.3.2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
Deemed PIO Mr. Rambir Singh Chhikara 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.
Deemed PIO Mr. Rambir Singh Chhikara will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 03 June 2011 at 10.30AM 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
10 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)