CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/000149/1344
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/000149
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S.L. Motwani
C-6/176 C, Keshav Puram,
Delhi.
Respondent 1. : The Secretary
Public Information Officer
Delhi Jal Board,
Vernalaya, Phase-II,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
RTI application filed on : 11/07/2008
Reply from PIO : 13/08/2008
First Appeal filed on : 28/08/2008
First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned
Second Appeal filed on : 06/10/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information regarding drinking water and safe drinking water from
Secretary, Public Information Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Vernalaya, Phase-II, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi-110005. The PIO vide letter dated 13/08/2008 asked the appellant to deposit a sum of
rupees 4- as a tentative cost of providing information.
However PIO Provide information vide letter dated 27/08/2008.
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply a. (i)Life of 4" and 6" iron and RCC pipe 30-40 years
(ii) samples collected since 01/01/2007
to 30/06/2008
2. Communications about unsafe drinking Total 7088
water to consumers
3. How many samples of water tested from The area doesn’t pertain to this division
01/01/2007 to 30/06/2008
4. If received complaints about swear -do-
water mixing with the portable water ,
What action has been taken.
5. Is DJB aware about sewer Drain Keshav Do
Puram and Kanhiya Nahar
Not Satisfied by the reply of the PIO the appellant filed First Appeal on 28/08/2008.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Not mentioned
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. S.L. Motwani
Respondent: Mr. Santosh D. Vaidya PIO
There are some differences of opinion on the dates of the application receipt at both ends.
Similarly there are different contentions about the area of the information sought and provided.
The appellant contends that the PIO asked for a payment of Rs.4000 for the information. It
appears to be Rs. 4=00 and below this the PIO has again written Rs.4/
The PIO has now given information of the relevant area of Keshav Puram and given it to the
appellant. The appellant contends that the answer of 5760 samples having been tested in
response to his query ‘How many samples of water tested from 01/01/2007 to 30/06/2008’ is not
borne out by facts. He is offered inspection of records which he is willing to do. If the appellant’s
contention is correct that samples are not being actually taken and tested, this has very grave
implications and the Commission appreciates the appellant’s willingness and diligence in
pursuing the matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will facilitate the inspection of the records relating to the samples drawn for testing free
of cost to the appellant on 10 February at 11.00am at the office of Mr. S. K. Ohlan, Zonal
Engineer – NW III, Kanahiya Nagar.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29th January 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)