CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003003/6370
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003003
Appellant : Mr. Ram Phool Sharma
35/4052, Regarpura,
Vishnu Mandir Marg
New Delhi-110005
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
Public Information Officer & SE
O/o the Superintendent Engineer (Building),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Karol Bagh Zone, Nigam Bhawan,
D.B.Gupta Road, Anand Parbat,
New Delhi-110005
RTI application filed on : 02/07/2009
PIO replied : 28/07/2009
First Appeal filed on : 20/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 14/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 30/11/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 10/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 13/01/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding complaint dated 26/05/2009 which was about illegal
encroachment and illegal construction made by the Appellant's neighbor. He sought reason for
not taking action on his complaint.
PIO's Reply:
"CBI in an investigation matter had seized the diary register for the period under reference, as
such the movement of the said complaint be verified/traced."
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfied with reply of the PIO, Appellant asked for reason of carrying that file by the CBI,
complaint no. and office address of the CBI. Appellant sought reason if that site did not come
under his zone, then why Appellant was asked for making complaint again.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Appellant was informed that the diary register for the period, for which the information had been
asked, was seized by the CBI and the movement of the complaint could not be traced. Queries of
Appellant had been answered by the PIO. Copy of the complaint was placed on record. PIO was
directed to look into the complaint and take appropriate action.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfied with the order of the FAA, Appellant asked additional questions what were
following:
1. Whether the office had copy of complaints.
2. Date of carried file by the CBI, name of agency, returning time of that file.
3. Whether official inspect the site about which complaint was made through telephone on
25/05/2009 and written complaint dated 26/05/2009.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ram Phool Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Chandra, Public Information Officer & SE;
The PIO and the First Appellate Authority had contended that the complaint which the
appellant was not identifiable since the diary register for the period has been taken away by CBI.
There is some confusion about which complaint the Appellant is referring to. The copy of the
complaint of the appellant of 26/05/2009 is given to the PIO before the Commission.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
06 February 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
13 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj