CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002460/15745
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002460
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Mehta
1474/102 Ganesh Pura,
Tri Nagar, Delhi - 110035
Respondent : PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The SE,
Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
Behind Sadar Thana,
Idgah Road, Delhi – 110006
RTI application filed on : 27-05-2011
PIO replied on : Not Replied
First Appeal filed on : 05-07-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 16-08-2011
Second Appeal received on : 07-09-2011
Information Sought:-
The Appellant has sought the following information :-
(1) With due respect, applicant wants information of ward No.90 Modal Basti.
Works department as mentioned below, as per RTI Act u/s 2(J)(I) where every citizen right to
know about Govt. works executed by works Deptt. From head of councilor fund of past three years
(2008-2011).
(a) Name of works
(b) Works name with complete description i.e. tender work etc.
(c) Funds sanction for execution of works.
(d) Date of proposed execution works.
(e) Date of start & completion of works along with status works & drawings.
(f) Name of agency/firm who executes the work.
(g) Proposed fund & work reason with remarks i.e. rate, calculation, time period decision
& whom recommendation received by Deptt. For works.
(h) How much amount paid to firm/agency of tender with completion of works?
(2) The applicant wants to inspect the record of works execute by firms/agency & at the time of
inspection of following documents are provided to me at my expense. i.e. measurement books, details
of expenditure, drawing, extra time permission & relevant documents of file. Payments voucher’s etc.
(3) As per section 2(J)(3) RTI Act every citizen have right to test the article / material. In laboratory
(certified lab), alongwith test report submitted by agency/firm to deptt. For payment, after execution of
work further the applicant be permitted to collect the sample & test the same in authorized
laboratory/lab in presence of deptt. person – The deptt. may ensure the applicant the sample collected
by them is truly & generally collect from sport.
Page 1 of 2
PIO’s Reply:-
The appellant was not provided with the reply.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply was given by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
” The PIO is directed to provide the requisite information to the applicant within 10 working
days available on record under the provision of RTI Act, failing which penal provision of the Act shall
be invoked.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No reply was given by the PIO and no information was provided after the order of the First Appellate
Authority.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information has
been provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate
Authority to the appellant before 10 December 2011.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the 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 without any reasonable cause.
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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 December 2011. He will also send the information sent
to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the
information to the appellant.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)
Page 2 of 2
