Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Sanjeev Chadha vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 November, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Sanjeev Chadha vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 November, 2009
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002294/5420
                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002294

Appellant                                    :     Mr. Sanjeev Chadha
                                                   R/o C-60, West Patel Nagar,
                                                   New Delhi-110008

Respondent                                   :     Mr. Pradeep Khandelwal
                                                   Public Information officer
                                                   Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
                                                   O/o the Superintending Engineer-I,
                                                   South Zone, Green Park,
                                                   New Delhi-110016

RTI application filed on                     :     25/07/2009
PIO replied                                  :     19/05/2009
First Appeal filed on                        :     17/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order              :     18/02/2009
Second Appeal Received on                    :     07/08/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on                    :     10/10/2009
Hearing Held on                              :     09/11/2009

Information sought:
Appellant sought information relating to refund/adjustment of amount deposited on account of
conversion charges in reference to the Notification dated 22/06/2007 following question:

S.No         Information Sought                                   PIO's Reply
1.   Whether the persons who have            The information sought vide this point is an opinion
     deposited amount of conversion          which does not come within the purview of RTI Act,
     charges and parking charges as per      2005. However, keeping in view the true spirits of
     notification date 20/11/2006 which      RTI, it is informed that regarding refund of charges,
     is in excess even after one time        deposited for conversion & parking as deposited at
     adjustment(one time payment for 8       the time of enforcement of Notification cannot be
     years) as     per notification date     refunded as there is no mention of this in the
     22/06/2007, are entitled to refund of   Notification dated 22/06/2007.The reply provided
     the excess amount deposited with        vide letter No.739 dated 18/08/2008, may be treated
     MCD. If no, then reasons                as withdrawn.
2.   Who is the competent authority for      As per information received from the office of CA-
     refund of the aforementioned excess     cum-FA, "Financial sanction depends upon the
     amount.                                 amount involved in each case & delegation of
                                             financial powers. However, in view of above, the
                                             question of competent authority odes not arise
PIO in his reply mentioned that due to non-receipt of information of point No.2 from the of CA-
cum-FA, the Appellant had filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority.
 Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant mentioned that in reply it had been told that being a financial matter it was the
competent authority/CA-cum-DA. But it was ridiculous and a clear mockery that the MCD is
itself divided in its opinion and its decision varies from one table to another (Copy enclosed).

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that the information had been furnished by CE-VIII, PIO vide letter dated
18/08/2008 and further vide letter dated 02/02/2009 had provided the information to the
Appellant, has already refunded /adjusted the amount in the similar matter. The matter is referred
to DC, South one for further necessary action and apprising the Appellant through the PIO.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Not mentioned.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Chadha;

Respondent: Mr. Likquat Hussain APIO on behalf of PIO Mr. Pradeep Khandelwal;
The Appellant has sought a clarification about when payment deposited in excess for parking and
conversion charges. The PIO has indicated that there is no record which states which such excess
charges would be paid. The information provided is as per the records. The Appellant is naturally
agitated since he says that in some cases refunds have been given whereas in other cases like this
refunds have not been given. If this is true this is an indicator arbitrariness which can provide
fertile gourd for corruption. The authority should look at this.

Decision:

The appeal is disposed.

The information has been provided.

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
9 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj