CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01514/SG/1050
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01514
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Budhiraja
President,
W.E.A. Karol Bagh Kalyan Smiti (Regd.),
5/18, W.E.A. Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110 085
Respondent 1. : Executive Engineer (M) I &
Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Executive Engineer (M)-I,
52-Block, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi
RTI filed on : 05/05/2008
PIO’s Reply : 29/05/2008
First Appeal filed on : 08/06/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 01/07/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 29/08/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information from MCD regarding reports for removal of Malba from
different sites in WEA during the year 2007-2008.
The PIO’s Reply:
The PIO in his reply on dated 29/05/2008 mentioned that the division does not have any record
pertaining to the lifting of malba from different sites in the areas. However, it is further clarified,
whenever any malba has been generated or found dumped on the foothpath/park etc., the same is
immediately removed.
Not satisfied by the Reply of PIO he appellant filed First Appeal:
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The first appellate authority on dated 01/07/2008 ordered that “Respondent PIO has stated that as
per the record available, the reply of the RTI application has been given to the appellant. But the
appellant is not satisfied with the reply. PIO has further stated that he has got nothing to say in
this regard. Since, the PIO has stated that RTI application has already been replied as per the
record available. The appeal is disposed off. ”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Shyam Budhiraja
Respondent: Absent
The appellant points out that there is a record of ‘melba’ removed with the MCD since this is
done by departmental trucks as also on contract. The PIO is guilty of providing a false answer.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 5 February, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of supplying false information by the PIO.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 February, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14th January, 2009
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)