Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 21 April, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 21 April, 2011
                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000424/12080
                                                                 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000424

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Mr. Sachhin Sapra
                                            F - 18, Back Lane,
                                            Rajouri Garden,
                                            New Delhi - 110027
                                            Mb. No. - 9810232077

Respondent                           (1):   Mr. K. C. Meena
                                            PIO & SE-II
                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                            O/o Suptdg. Engg.-II, West Zone,
                                            Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
                                            New Delhi

Respondent                           (2):   Mr. Naurang Singh
                                            PIO & SE-I
                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                            O/o Suptdg. Engg.-I, West Zone,
                                            Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
                                            New Delhi

RTI application filed on             :      18/10/2010
PIO replied                          :      21/01/2011
First appeal filed on                :      30/11/2010
FAA's order                          :      13/01/2011
Second appeal received on            :      10/02/2011

Facts of the issue:

Information regarding the following was sought by the applicant:

1) Office of EE-1 (B) MCD WZ:-

Provide the names (with father name) of the following engineers in above office,
date of joining/taking charge, date of transfer/relieve of additional charge from the above office
and reason of transfer from above office with supporting evidence/document:-

a) Executive Engineer

b) Asstt. Engineer

c) Junior Engineer

2) Office of EE-2 (B) MCD WZ:-

Provide names (with father name) of the following engineer who held the above
office with date of joining/taking charge of above office, date of transfer/relieve of additional
charge from above office and reason of transfer from above office with supporting
evidence/document:-

a) Executive Engineer

b) Astt. Engineer

c) Junior Engineer

3) Office of EE M-1 MCD WZ:-

Provide name(with father name) of the following engineers who held above
office with date of joining/taking charge of above office, date of transfer/relieve of additional
charge from above office and reason of transfer from office with supporting evidence/document:-

a) Executive Engineer

b) Astt. Engineer

c) Junior Engineer

First Appeal:-

Reply was unsatisfactory

FAA’s order:

“The case was taken up on 5.1.11. The appellant was present. The PIOs, SE-I/WZ and SE-II were
present. The appellant informed that he has received the incomplete reply as date of transfer and
reason of transfer has not been mentioned. The PIOs, SE-I and SE-II are hereby directed to send the
revised reply stating therein the date of joining and transfer also, as discussed during the hearing, to
the appellant within 15 days’ time.”

Ground of the second Appeal:

1- Reply to point-3 (a) to (c) not received till day.
2- Reply to point 1 & 2 have been mixed up.

3- Details of EE-2 (B) is incomplete (Sr no’s 2,6,8,9) after 2 there ought to be another EE-2 (B)
i.e. for period between 02.02.10 & 05.04.10.

Submission from the PIO:

In compliance of the said order, list of the staff has been prepared mentioning therewith date of joining
and relieving in EE(B)-I & EE(B)-II office.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & SE-II;

Regarding the objection of the Appellant quoted no.2 above in the ground for second appeal
the Respondent states that in the second column it is clear whether the information is regarding
Building-I or Building-II. The information regarding point no.-1 & 3 above has to be provided by
PIO/SE-I (WZ).

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The present PIO/SE-I (West Zone) is directed to provide the information on
Point-1 & 3 mentioned in the grounds for Second Appeal mentioned above to the
appellant before 10 May 2011.

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
21 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ)