CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001546/8642
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001546
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chugh
D2/2624, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi 110 070
--
Respondent : Dr. A. K. Bansal
Public Information Officer & Dy. Health Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Health Department
West Zone, Vishal Enclave,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2010 PIO replied : 07/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 26/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 06/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 07/06/2010 No Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. Does the above meat shop have a valid license to carry Yes, the licenses valid up to 31.03.2010.
out this business from the premises? If yes, what is the
expiry date of the license?
2. If answer to point no.1. Is Yes’, in whose name is the The license has been issued for the shop
license registered? The copies of the supporting M/S Wahabuddin Meat Shop at E-377
documents on the strength of which the license has Ramesh Nagar New Delhi in the name
been granted need to be provided. of Nawabuddin S/O. Wahahuddin.
3 Is there a specific concurrence letter from the owner of The applicant has submitted the
the premises to the tenant (meat shop) to run the rent receipt and an affidavit
business from this premises? If ‘Yes’ ,the copies of regarding the occupancy of the shop.
the same should be provided. Copies are enclosed.
4. If the above meat shop is without a valid license, why is Not Applicable
it running in the area?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and documents asked for in point No. 2 & 3 had not been
enclosed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PlO was ordered to revisit the entire application in the light of guidelines (of meat shops issued
by the MCD) and submit the appropriate reply to the appellant under intimation to the FAA within next 15
days.
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply provided by the PIO after FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chugh;
Respondent: Dr. A. K. Bansal, PIO & Dy. Health Officer (West Zone); Dr. Mool Chand, Veterinary
Officer;
The PIO has given certain information but is now directed to give the following additional
information:
1- The PIO states that an adhoc licensing was issued to Mr. Wahabuddin and the office does not
have a copy of this. The PIO will state this in writing and give it to the appellant.
2- The PIO states that the license was issued in the name of Mr. Nawabuddin in November 2009.
He will give attested copy of this license to the appellant.
3- The PIO states that there is no concurrence letter available on the records. The PIO will give
this information in writing to the appellant.
4- The PIO will provide a copy of the showcause notice issued to Mr. Nawabuddin and the reply
received to the showcause notice.
5- Whether any inspection has been done of the shop after June 2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before
05 August 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
22 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SM)
Page 2 of 2