CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443/9761
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sachhin Sapra
F-18 Back Lane
Rajouri Garden
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & Superintending Engineer-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2010 PIO replied : 14/07/2010 First appeal filed on : 07/07/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 13/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 30/08/2010 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. In the Minutes of meeting held was recorded that No such record available in the office. A file
submitted that notices had been issued to all the 11 regarding the property was pending in the
shops. Monitoring Committee.
2. Provide the copy of replies in response to the above Same as above.
notices issued.
3. Provide the copy of sealing orders for the shops. .As per the records available in the office. The
property was sealed due to misuse.
4. On 26/11/2008 a letter was written accordingly Same as answer 1
provide the details of the action.
5. Copy of the re-sealing order for above shops No need for any order in resealing the property.
6. What action taken by the MCD in response to the No action had been taken on it till date.
letter that building regularization of F19 by the
owner.
7. How many shops have been allowed to be de-sealed No.
by monitoring committee at basement
and ground floor ofFI9 Rajouri Garden.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to send the reply within a week’s time.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I;
The PIO has given information after the order of the FAA but is now directed to give the following
information:
1- Query-3: All the pages will be attested and the covering note will give the number of pages from the
file are given.
2- Query-7: The PIO will inform the appellant that all the shops have been de-sealed.
Page 1 of 2
3- Query-11: The appellant had asked for a detailed road survey report on the basis of which certain
roads were notified for commercial use under MPD-2001. The PIO has stated that this report has
been sent to Chief Town Planner(CTP) but CTP has stated that they do not have this report and that
since the zonal office has conducted the survey they should be able to provide the information. Thus
neither the zone nor CTP admit that they have the report nor are they willing to certify that it is not
available with MCD. In view of this ADC(Engineering) is directed to either provide the report to
the appellant or certify that the report is not available in MCD.
4- Query-12 (b) & (c): The information will be provided by the PIO.
5- Query-13 (c): The query has been shunted from the zone to CTP which in turn shunted it to
SE(Planning) which has again sent it back to the zone. Since no body has the information
ADC(Engineering) is directed to provide the information to the appellant.
6- Query-16: The PIO will provide the information to the appellant.
The PIO has taken the assistance of Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) who is responsible for the delay in
providing the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal is directed to give the information on queries 1, 2, 4 & 6 as
mentioned above to the appellant before 30 October 2010.
The Commission also directed ADC (Engineering) to provide the information on queries -3
& 5 as mentioned above to the appellant before 05 November 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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.
Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I)will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
06 December 2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO
is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)
CC:
To,
1- ADC(Engineering) through PIO & SE Mr. V. R. Bansal;
2- Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I)
Page 2 of 2