CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002755/10104
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002755
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Gupta,
D-17, II Floor, Vijay Nagar,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
Respondent : Mr. Sushil Kumar
Public Information Officer & SE,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the SE, Zonal Office Building,
MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali Road,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-02
RTI application filed on : 03/05/2010
PIO replied : 17/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 10/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 29/09/2010
.
Information sought:
The appellant sought information regarding the work for construction of Hindi Park, Darya Ganj, order
no. EE-II/TC-I/2003-04/619 dated March 24:
1. Certified photocopy of work order mentioned as above with schedule of work.
2. Certified photocopy of complete agreement (with general and special conditions & draft NIT) for
the above said work.
3. Certified photocopy of extension of time whether approved or not, which specifies the reasons for
delay in work.
4. Certified photocopy of hindrance and cement register.
5. As per general and special conditions which are applicable in above said work order, whether
Clause 25 of Arbitration is applicable or not.
6. Whether approval for extension of time is being taken from Competent Authority. If not, kindly
clarify the reason for the same.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO asked the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 252 to receive the sought the sought information.
Grounds for first appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the time mandated in the RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Copy of the Order not enclosed.
Grounds for second appeal:
Unsatisfactory response of the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Umesh Gupta ;
Respondent: Mr. R. P. Kohli, EE on behalf of Mr. Sushil Kumar, Public Information Officer & SE;
The PIO had supplied information earlier and has supplied the balance information to the
Appellant before the Commission. MCD has a very peculiar practice of sanctioning extensions in the
time period of a work years after the work is over. This practice appears to be a very fertile ground for
arbitrariness and it would be good if MCD changes this.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
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 November 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RLM)