CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01541/SG/3828
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01541/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Budhiraja
5/18, W.E.A., Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
Respondent : Mr. Kaptansingh, S.S.
Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
'Nigam Bhawan', D. B. gupta
Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh
New Delhi-110005
RTI application filed on : 05/05/2008
PIO replied : Not Replied
First appeal filed on : 16/06/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 01/07/2008
Second Appeal received on : 30/08/2008
Information sought:
The Appellant in his RTI application has sought information regarding steps had been/ were
being taken to clean drains and gali gratings in WEA as the rainy season was to drawing nearer.
Reply of PIO:
Not Replied.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Non Receipt of desired information from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority
The FAA ordered, “It is hereby, directed that the reply be given within 10 days from the issue of
these orders.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 19 June 2009:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shyam Budhiraja
Respondent: Mr. Kaptansingh, S.S.
The PIO claims that he has sent the reply on 04/06/2008. The appellant states that he had not
received this. Further it is curious that the FAA’s order of 1 July 2008 does not make any
mention of the reply has been sent by the PIO. The respondent is asked to show evidence of the
information having been sent by producing the dispatch register and proof of posting the letter.
The PIO will produce this in the Commission’s office on Wednesday 24 June 2009 at 12.30pm.
The matter is adjourned till 24 June 2009.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 24 June 2009:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Kaptansingh, S.S.
The PIO has brought the dispatch register in which it shown at serial no. 2014 a letter has been
sent for ID-1690 on 4/06/2008. In view of this the Commission accepts the PIO’s contention.
The PIO admits that the letter may be lost in posting since they do not have postal proof of the
dispatch of the letter.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO had given the information to the appellant during the hearing on 19 June 2009 before
the Commission.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
If information is not provided in the time stipulated under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, it has to be provided free of
cost to the Appellant
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)