CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003288/10803
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003288
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Surender Kumar Tyagi,
WZ-122, Bodella, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi- 110018.
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
SE-II/West Zone,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
West Zone, School Building, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi-110027.
RTI application filed on : 07/05/2010 PIO replied : 30/06/2010 First appeal filed on : 10/07/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 01/09/2010 Second Appeal received on : 23/11/2010 Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought answer to 67 questions related to sealing of premises. The queries revolve
around direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi, provisions as per MCD,
recommendation of monitoring committee, MCD, Vikaspuri (West Zone), category in which the market
of Bodella falls-commercial, residential or mixed, procedure related to de-sealing of the property, etc.
Reply of the PIO:
1) PIO/SE-II/WZ has replied in response to query 1, 2 and 21 vide letter dated 30/06/2010.
2) PIO/JE (B)/WZ has responded w. r. t. queries 1-10. As regards the queries 11-67, the PIO states that the
information sought is voluminous in nature and the same is being collected from other sources. The
same shall be provided in due course of time.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply furnished by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The interim information was provided. He was requested to inspect the files in respect of some
information. The PIO is directed to revisit the application and appeal and give the specific reply within
30 days.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved with the order of the FAA. He believes the same to be inconsistent, ambiguous
and incomplete.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Surender Kumar Tyagi;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant has sought information through 67 queries and insist that information must be
provided on all the queries. The PIO has provided the information and the FAA has also recorded that
voluminous information has been sought. The Commission has offered the appellant an opportunity to
inspect the relevant records but the appellant states he is not willing to inspect the records. The Appellant
explains to the Commission that his property was sealed and he wants to know the reasons why his
property has been picked for sealing. The Commission has explained to the appellant it is difficult to
expect that this information would be available on the records, but has against offered him an inspection
of the relevant records in case he can get some information which may be of use to him. After the
recorded this the Appellant states that he would like to inspect the records on 27 January 2011 from
10.30AM onwards.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the all the records relevant to the
Appellant’s queries on 27 January 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give
attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 500 pages.
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
06 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST