CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002587/9934
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002587
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Budhiraja,
5/18 W.E.A. Karol Bagh,
New Delhi – 110005
Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Wadhwa
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer (Pr.),
Karol Bagh Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
52 Block, Old Rajendra Nagar,
New Delhi – 110060
RTI application filed on : 22/03/2010
PIO replied : 29/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 23/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 15/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 15/09/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on : 28/09/2010
The appellant sought following information with regard to each Project undertaken for improvement of
areas in Delhi in connection with Commonwealth Games 2010:
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO Query Name of the project, including area(s) The following schemes for CWG-2010 have been approved for 1. covered Karol Bagh area:
(i) Upgradation of road, footpath electrification, central verge,
rotaries, etc. for CWG-2010, Karol Bagh Zone
(ii) Fixing of signage and rotaries in Karol Bagh area
Query Details of the project The provisions that have been taken under the project are:
2. (i) Improvement of footpath
(ii) Improvement of central verge
(iii) Improvement of drainage system
(iv) Providing duct for utility services
(v) Improvement of rotaries
(vi) Improvement of roads
Query Estimated amount sanctioned for the Amount of Rs. 3580.36 lacs has been sanctioned for the project
3. project
Query Name of the authority responsible for Municipal Corporation of Delhi
4. the execution of the project
Query Other agencies/authorities whose The coordination of the concerned utility agencies like MTNL,
5. cooperation has been sought DJB, BSES, Delhi Police, Traffic Police etc. is sought from time
to time.
Query Present status of work of the project, The project is in progress and there is no revision of the project
6. including the position whether there has till now. There is regular testing of materials in Mpl Lab and by a
been any revision of estimated third party. The record of material testing report is voluminous
expenditure with reasons for such which may be inspected in Project Division Karol Bagh Zone.
revision. Copy of reports of proper
checks about the quality of the
materials used.
Query Copies of letter(s), etc. seeking No reply.
7. cooperation from other concerned
departments/authorities, and position
about these matters, especially for
Karol Bagh area and also for other
areas concerned
Grounds for first appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
During the hearing PIO/SE(Project) and APIO/EE(Project) were directed to give the requisite
detailed and complete information to the appellant alongwith a copy of the report within 10 days.
Grounds for second appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and order of the FAA not complied with.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shyam Budhiraja;
Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Wadhwa, Public Information Officer & Superintending Engineer (Pr.);
Mr. B. B. Agrawal, Executive Engineer(Pr.) & APIO;
The PIO claims that he has sent the information to the appellant but has no proof of having sent
it. The appellant states that he has not received the information. the respondent appears to be treating his
job very casually since he has no proof to show that he has sent the information to the appellant even
when he comes in the hearing before the Commission. Since the appellant has not received the
information so far it appears that the information was not sent to him. The respondent ha snot even
bother to bring the information which he claims to have sent to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the information to the appellant by speed post before
05 November 2010.
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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which
raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 15 December 2010 at 3.00pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this
decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
28 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AS)