CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000081/6870
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000081
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Suresh Sanwal,
CRI Pumps Private Limited,
J-4/11, Shivaji Market, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi- 110027.
Respondent : Mr. R. Narula
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
O/o Chief Engineer (Elect),
Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi Gate,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 29/06/2009
PIO replied : 30/10/2009 (after FAA's order).
First appeal filed on : Not enclosed.
First Appellate Authority order : 20/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 30/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 14/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 17/02/2010
Information Sought (with reference to removal of CRI submersible pumps & control panels from the
approved list of MCD order No 131/MWEEEI/2009-10 dated 19/06/2009 for Unit Rate).
a) Reasons for non inclusion of CRI submersible pumps and control panels in order no
131/MWEEEI/2009-10 dated 19/06/2009.
b) Criteria for inclusion and removal of products from the approved list.
Reply of the PIO (after FAA’s order).
Various parameters are taken into consideration before finalizing a deal. This includes reliability of a
company, after sales service, record of Govt supply orders etc. This is done on a rotational basis so that
no product can be ‘monopolized’. The Appellant was therefore requested to send the brief profile of the
company which fulfilled the above mentioned parameters so that the Appellant’s company could be
considered for future tenders.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA accepted the plea of PIO (CE, Elect) that he be given time to provide information (copy of
document on the basis of which the firm was not included in the panel) to the Appellant within 7 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory, vague and incomplete information received from the PIO. The Appellant’s company had
fulfilled all the criteria for eligibility since the company was in the MCD’s approved list for the last 2
years.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Suresh Sanwal;
Respondent: Mr. R. Narula, Public Information Officer & SE;
The Appellant is a manufacturer of pumps with the brand name CRI. He’s pumps has been listed in the
makes which have been found acceptable by MCD for the last two years. Various other pumps are also
mentioned in the list of acceptable makes. In the unit rate system these pumps are treated as approved
makes. In the current year whereas all the other makes have been continued on the approved list the CRI
make of the appellant has been removed form the approval list. The Appellant has sought reasons for
this. It is significant that the First Appellate Authority by his order of 17/10/2009 had directed the PIO to
provide the copy of the documents on the basis of which the firm was not included in the panel. The PIO
did not provide any copy of documents which shows how the decision to remove the name of this
company was arisen. Instead a letter was sent to the Appellant on 30/10/2009 asking him to send a brief
profile of his company by Mr. R.K.Sharma Chief Engineer and the then PIO. This was clearly in
violation of the order of the First Appellate Authority. If there was no paper evidencing any reasons for
no continuing the name of he appellant’s company in the approved list this should have stated clearly.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The present PIO Mr. R. Narula is directed to send a copy of documents on the basis of which the
CRI make pump was removed from the list of approved makes. If there are no reasons on record for
removing the CRI make from the list of approved pumps this should be stated. The PIO will give this
information to the Appellant before 05 March 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr.
R.K.Sharma Chief Engineer and the then PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days,
as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer,
which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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.
R.K.Sharma will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 March 2010 at
2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to
appear before the Commission with him.
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
17 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)
CC:
To,
Mr. R.K.Sharma Chief Engineer and the then PIO through Mr. R. Narula, Present PIO.