CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00300/1606
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00300
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S. Gopal,
E-340A, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi-110048.
Respondent 1 : Asstt.Commissioner & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Central Zone,
Office of the Asstt. Commissioner
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024
RTI application filed on : 28/04/2008
PIO replied : 24/06/2008
First appeal filed on : 07/08/2008
First Appellate Authority order : not replied.
Second Appeal filed on : 01/12/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application for earmarked, terms and conditions,
contractor of the parking lots in Greater Kailash-I and Kailash Colony for public
car parking.
Detail of required information:-
S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. Which are the areas earmarked in The sketch of the parking allotted by
Greater Kailash -I and Kailash Colony MCD in G.K.-I and Kailash Colony
for public car parking where one has are enclosed for perusal.
to pay.
2. What are the terms and conditions Copy of the terms of condition for
under which the parking lot has been parking are also enclosed for kind
contracted out to individuals? A copy perusal.
of the same may be provided.
3. Who should be approached for Addl. Deputy Commissioner (PPCell)
complaints against the contractors of and Deputy Commissioner/ Central
the parking lots? Zone.
The First Appellate Authority ordered: –
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. S. Gopal
Respondent: Mr. Krishen Kumar on behalf of Mr. S.K. Midha PIO
The appellant was given the information very late. What is surprising is that a purported
agreement allotting the Parking lot in Kailash Colony market to Ashiana Security (P) Ltd.
has no dates on the agreement which is supposedly for 5 years. There does not even
appear to be a proper signature of any recognizable person from MCD.
The PIO has given this information also very late which raises a reasonable doubt about
the intentions.
The PIO will provide to the appellant a complete list of authorized Parking licencees as
well a list of unauthorized parking licensees in Central Zone to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 25 February, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 5 March, 2009. He will also submit
proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 12, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)