Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr.R D Misra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 22 March, 2011
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003642/11225Adjunct
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003642
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. R. D. Mishra,
251- D, J & K Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi- 110095

Respondent : Mr. M. C. Jha,
PIO & Deputy A & C,
Assessment & Collection Department (HQ),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Property Tax Building, Ring Road,
Lajpat Nagar- III, New Delhi- 110024

RTI application filed on : 04/10/2010
PIO replied : 08/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 15/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned.

Second Appeal received on            :        2412/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on            :        14/01/2011
Hearing held on                      :        01/02/2011

Information Sought:

The Complaint through his RTI dated 04/10/2010 addressed to the PIO & Assistant Commissioner,
MCD, CED, Town Hall; sought information with respect to transfer/posting orders issued by the CED
dated 03/08/2010 and other related orders issued in July, August and September of 2010, regarding Head
Clerks and UDC’s. In this context the complaint desired information relating to various administrative
functions namely the compliance reports received, the officials so relieved after issue of the said orders,
requests for retention of some of the employees designated to be transferred, details of employees
retained on the ground of their retirement etc. He further sought certified copies of the relevant
documents and inspection of the same.

The RTI application was subsequently transferred by the Central Establishment Department or CED in
short to the Assessment & Collection Department vide their letter dated 15th October 2010.

Reply of the PIO dated 08/10/2010:

1. Directions have been given to all OSD/Jt.A&Cs/Dy.A&C to relieve the UDCs/Head Clerks
transferred -vide orders of Central Estt. Department.

2. As per the transfer orders referred in the RTI application. 52 Clerks were transferred from A&C
Department, out of which 19 have complied to the orders.

3. As far A & C Department is concerned, no modification order has been received from CED.

4. Does not relate to this department.

5. List of the transferred clerks/inspectors with their period of service in A&C Deptt. is enclosed.

6. Does not relate to this department.

7. As per available record, A&C has given directions to Jt.A&C/South zone for relieving Shri S.L.

Maihotra, Head clerk. As per record, Shri S.L Malhotra has served about 16 years in A & C
Deptt.- The record with respect to the request for retention of Shri S.L. Malhotra is not available
with this office, however, the documents available can he supplied on payment of Rs. 4/- (D,
Rs.2/- per page) and inspection of record is allowed for which, he may contact Shi1 MC. Jha, Dy.
Assessor & Collector/APIO/HQ, Room No.10, Ground floor at the above cited address(Tel.
No.29844791, Mob.9717750217), with prior intimation, along with proof of payment and identity.
Rest of the information relates to CED.

8. In the functioning of a department, approval of a proposal is not taken by the Superior Officer
from the subordinate officer. Rest of the information relates to CED.

9. As per service records, Shri Jamna Prasad, Head Clerk has served 17/years in A & C Department.

Rest of the information relates to CED.

10. As replied in point no.7. Rest of the information relates to CED.

First Appeal :

It is the contention of the Appellant that the RTI application was submitted on 4 th October 2010 t Town
Hall and the reply of the PIO was received on 10 th November 2010, and therefore the PIO can not demand
fee of the requisite documents.

It has been further contended that certified copies of directions/ orders/documents with respect to his
queries have not been provided. Further the queries on which information was not available with the
department should have been transferred to the relevant department.

Order of the FAA:

Not mentioned.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

The Appellant has come before this Commission on the basic tenet that his RTI application was not
responded to in the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, further the First Appellate Authority did not hear his
Appeal within the mandated time period, he attended the hearing, however, he has not received the copy
of any order of the First Appellate Authority. The Appellant was not allowed inspection of the relevant
records and was made to run from Pillar to Post for the same. The information has therefore been denied
to him.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on February 1, 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. R. D. Misra;

Respondent : Mr. M. C. Jha, Public Information Officer & Dy. A & C;

“The PIO has given some of the information but has not given some information as follows:
1- Name of the clerks who did not comply with the order of transfers was not provided. The PIO
states these were provided to the Appellant on 12/01/2011.
2- Copies of orders to retain the clerks who have not complied with the orders. In case no such
orders are in existence this will be stated.

3- The PIO will obtain the photocopy of the request made to CED to reatain the two clearks a and
provided it to the Appellant.

The Appellant shows that Commission that one Mr. S. L. Malhotra, Head Clerk in A&C Department has
been in the same department since 17 years and has refused to be transferred. The Respondent admits that
he has not been transferred so far. This appears to show the ineffective and weak administration of the
public authority.

The Appellant would like to inspect the relevant records on 10 February 2011 from 10.30AM onwards at
the office of the PIO.”

Decision dated February 1, 2011:

The Appeal was allowed.

“The PIO is directed to give the information on four points as directed above to the
Appellant before 10 February 2011.

The PIO is also directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant
on 10 February 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. He will give photocopies of records which
the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.”

Facts leading to hearing held on March 22, 2011:

The Commission received a letter dated 11/02/2011 from the Appellant alleging that inspection had not
been facilitated till date. The Commission, vide notice dated 28/02/2011 scheduled a hearing on

Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on March 22, 2011:
The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. R. D. Mishra;

Respondent: Mr. M. C. Jha, PIO & Deputy A & C.

The Respondent stated that though the Appellant was informed that inspection could be carried out on
10/02/2011, he did not turn up for inspection. Thereafter, the Appellant inspected certain records on
18/02/2011. After the inspection, the Appellant refused to sign the inspection report. The Appellant stated
that he went for inspection on 10/02/2011. However, no records were shown to him. He further stated that
the records inspected by him on 18/02/2011 were not relevant to the RTI application. The Appellant
admitted that he did not sign the inspection report as the records shown to him during the inspection were
not relevant.

Adjunct Decision:

In view of the aforesaid, the Commission hereby once again directs Mr. M. C. Jha, PIO & Deputy A & C
to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant before April 30, 2011. Mr. M. C. Jha,
PIO & Deputy A & C shall provide attested photocopies of records required by the Appellant free of cost
upto 200 pages.

Further, during the inspection, if the Appellant feels that there are certain records/ documents that should
have been made available to him and have, in fact, not been made available to him, then he shall make a
list of the same and provide it to the PIO. The PIO shall, then, certify in writing that the said records/
documents are not available on record.

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
March 22, 2011

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ANP)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.223 seconds.