Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Sunil Kant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 December, 2008

Central Information Commission
Mr. Sunil Kant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 December, 2008
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                      Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                     Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066
                           Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                  Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00232/00231/SG/0528
                                            Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00232/00231/

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kant
9/27, Vijay Nagar, Double Story,
Delhi – 110009.

Respondent 1 : Dy. Commissioner, C.L. Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
16, Rajpur Road, Civil Line,
Delhi 110054.

RTI filed on : 19/10/2007 ID 1754/C.L.Z.

PIO replied                           :      No Reply
First appeal filed on                 :      29/11/2007
First Appellate Authority order       :      06/12/2007
Second Appeal filed on                :      22/01/2008

Information sought & replies, if any:

Appellant had filed a RTI application in which he referred to the fact that the department had
sent him a letter on 28/09/07 regarding mutation of Building no. 2249. He stated that he had
given the answer with all the requisite papers. He had asked for a certified copy of the
complete file relating to building no. 2249, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi 110009.
The appellant says that he did not receive any response; hence he filed a first appeal.

First Appellate Authority’s order:

The First Appellate authority passed an order saying that the information had already been
furnished by the PIO. He stated that the appellant could get the copies of the requisite
documents after paying photocopying charges.
The appellant has come in second appeal where he states that he was asked to pay Rs. 194/.
He pointed out that since the information had not been provided in time, it had to be given
free of cost.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant:

Respondent: Mr. Jagdeep Chiller, PIO
The respondent has shown evidence that the information has been provided to the appellant
on 12/12/2007. However, from the respondent’s records it is clear that a letter was sent on
20/11/2007 to the appellant asking him to pay Rs. 194 for the information. It was clearly
wrong for the PIO to demand for payment of additional fees when the information was
delayed. The PIO is warned to ensure that information must be supplied in time and if any
additional charges have to be collected, such a letter should be sent within 25 days of the RTI
application.

Decision:

Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to ensure that the Public authority sends a refund of Rs.194
to the appellant before 25 December, 2008.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15th December, 2008.

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number)
ms