CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000864/7779
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000864
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sumit Chauhan
WZ - A -1/284, First Floor,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110059
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena
Public Information Officer & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Supintendent Engineer - II
O/o the Supintendent Engineer - II
West Zone, Vishal Enclave,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 23/05/2009
PIO replied : 07/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 31/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 16/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 01/04/2010
Information Sought:
a) Total no. of complaints received on the building construction the in the year 2009.
b) Information regarding what action has been taken on the complaints along with the details.
c) Condition of the illegal constructions on which action has been taken. After the action being
taken, further any construction has been done? If yes, provide the details.
d) Reasons for the action taken on the illegal constructions. Information regarding Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, Act, 1957.
e) Reasons and conditions of the complaints falling under Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Act,
1957, on which no action has been taken, along with the details.
f) Criteria for taking action and not taking action on the complaints of illegal construction
g) Which Officer is held responsible if no action is taken even after receiving the complaints?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The information received has been enclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant alleges that no information had been provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to send the complete information to the appellant
within 7 days
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No reply provided by the PIO and unsatisfactory order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sumit Chauhan;
Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
The Appellant admits that he has received the information. However, the first information
was sent by the MCD office on 01/07/2009 whereas the appellant had applied on 26/05/2009.
The PIO states that he had prepared the letter on 19/06/2009 in which there was a demand for
payment of 84 for providing 42 pages of information. It appears that the systems within MCD
are very poor because of which the letter prepared on 19/06/2009 was actually sent on
01/07/2009. Since this letter was sent after 30 days it was a violation of RTI Act and no charges
could have been asked for. Subsequently the appellant paid Rs.84/- on 13/07/2009 and the
information was sent on 26/10/2009. The PIO claims that he was not informed of the payment of
Rs.84/- by the appellant. it is not the appellant’s duty to go and inform the PIO that he has paid
the additional fee. MCD has to device by y which the PIO can be informed when the payment is
made. On 26/10/2009 when the information was sent by post to the Appellant the post was
returned since the postman could not make the delivery. Thus the information was ultimately
provided to the appellant in February 2010.
The sequence of events indicates that the information was provided late because of an absence of
proper system in MCD to ensure that the PIO’s reply is sent immediately to the Appellant and
the PIO is informed when the additional fee is paid by the appellant at the cash counter. In the
absence of these system though the PIO may do his work diligently in proper time the purpose of
ensuring that information is delivered in time will not be served. In this matter the Commission
feels that information was given late to the Appellant due to the fault in the systems of MCD and
hence the Commission awards compensation of Rs.3000/- to the Appellant for the loss and
determent suffered because of providing the information late.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided. The PIO is directed to ensure that a
cheque of Rs.3000/- is sent to the Appellant before 15 June 2010.
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
19 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MS)