CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001111+001281/8071
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001111+001281
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.D. Mishra,
251 D, J&K Dilshad Garden,
Delhi- 110095.
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Parashar
Public Information Officer &
Asstt. Commissioner, Central Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi- 24.
RTI application filed on : 23/01/2010
PIO replied : 29/01/2010 and 23/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 10/03/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 15/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information regarding allotment of parking sites in various zones and
action taken by the Department against officials acting mala fide in respect of transfer orders.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information
Officer (PIO)
1. Number of parking sites/ contracts allotted in Central Parking sites/contracts are allotted
Zone and South Zone during tenure of Sh. S.K. Midha, by RP Cell, MCD and during the
D.C./MCD-from 2004 till date. tenure of Shri Midha, Dy.
Commissioner in Central Zone, no
parking site was allotted by RP Cell
in Central Zone.
2. Name of contractors, Ph. No. and addresses who got Same as above.
parking contracts in Central and South Zone in the
above said period.
3. Amount of each parking contract that was decided in Same as above.
both the Zones, give ward-wise details in the above
said zone, during the said period.
4. Remission/Rebates sanctioned to each of the Not available. All files have been
contractors who got parking contracts under the said sent / transferred to RP Cell.
zones and the said concerned DC.
5. Details of the Dealing Assistant/ Inspector with the Same as above.
above parking sites in both zones in the
abovementioned period.
Page 1 of 3
6. Whether it is correct that in spite of orders issued by Does not pertain to Licensing
Commissioner in December, 2009 and Jan, 2010 those Department, Central Zone.
officials are yet to be relieved.
7. Whether it is correct that Dy. Commissioner/SZ had Same as above.
sent a note to Addl. Commissioner (Engg.) requesting
him to withdraw/withhold the orders of the
Commission.
8. Whether DC/SZ can write a letter to Addl. Same as above.
Commissioner (Engg.) without any proposal from his
subordinates to withdraw transfer orders of two clerks
and if such noting is lawful and not malafide.
9. Copy of modified orders of the Commissioner, state if Same as above.
such modification is lawful and whether commissioner
is competent to modify/revoke his own orders. Specify
provision of DMC Act under which such
revocation/modification is done.
10. Provide compliance report/ATR of Circular/orders of Same as above.
Commissioner in respect of the transfer orders of the
two clerks in General Branch/licensing (South Zone).
11. Provide copies of work output of Zonal Supdt./SZ Same as above.
since his posting in the Present Zone. Also specify
details of his movable and immovable properties.
12. Reason for discrimination among the three orders by Same as above.
the same CED and punishment given to guilty CED
officials.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Since the Information sought by the appellant besides Central Zone also pertained to South Zone,
CED and R.P. Cell for which application had been transferred to the respective PIOs for
providing information to the appellant (who did not appear to present his case), the appeal was
disposed of.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. R. D. Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. Ram Chander, APIO on behalf of Mr. R. K. Parashar, PIO & AC (Central);
Mr. Raj Kumar, Suptd. representing Mr. Amiya Chandra, PIO & OSD(RP Cell);
Mr. Z. D. Sharma, PIO & AC (South), Green Park, Delhi; Mr. R. K. Bhargava,
UDC( South), Green Park;
No information appears to have been provided on queries 4, 6, 7, 9, & 10.
1- On query-4 the four officers present cannot make up their mind as to who should give the
information on Remission/Rebates sanctioned to each of the contractors. Mr. Raj Kumar
however states that he will provide this information to the appellant now.
Page 2 of 3
2- Regarding query-6, 7, 9 & 10 PIO South Zone will provide copies of the order of the
Municipal commissioner ordering the relieving of the officers, copy of the proposal made
by Dy. Commissioner for retention of these officers and copy of the Municipal
Commissioner’s approval for this.
It appears that various officers of MCD were unable to provide the information to the appellant
because of their inefficient working. It is difficult to pinpoint the blame on individual officer for
the delay in providing the information. The appellant however has had to face unnecessary
harassment of filing an appeal and coming at the hearing before the Commission. The
Commission therefore awards a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the appellant for the loss and
detriment suffered of having to file an appeal, delay in getting the information and coming for
the hearing.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO (South Zone) is directed to give the information on queries 6, 7, 9
& 10 as directed above to the appellant before 25 June 2010.
Mr. Raj Kumar, Superintendent (RP Cell) is directed to give the information on
query-4 to the appellant before 25 June 2010.
The PIO (South Zone) is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- is sent
to the appellant before 15 July 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
09 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC)
Page 3 of 3