CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000001/11723
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000001
Complainant : Mr. Vishal Nirula,
13/86, Old Talwandi Road,
Zira, Distt. Ferozepur,
Punjab-142047
Respondent : PIO & Superintending Engineer -II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi - 110027
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant had filed a RTI application dated 12/10/2010 with the PIO O/o The
Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi asking for certain information. However, on not having
received the information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under
Section 18 of the RTI Act before this Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice
to the PIO, MCD O/o The Commissioner, RTI Cell, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006
on 03/01/2011 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought
an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission is in receipt of the submissions made by the Respondent vide letter dated
17/01/2011 wherein it has been stated that the RTI application was replied through a letter dated
13/12/2010. It was also submitted that the RTI Application was received on 09/11/2010 in the
office of Respondent and the same was forwarded to Deemed PlO/ EE(B)-II/WZ on 10/11/2010
for furnishing the requisite information. As no reply/ information was received from the office of
Deemed PlO/EE (B)-II/WZ two Memos were issued and served on 23/11/2010 and 03/12/2010, as
a result reply / information was received from the office of Deemed PlO / EE (B)-II/WZ on
10/12/2010 and the same was forwarded to Complainant dated 13/12/2010. It was also submitted
that in view of the above, there is no delay on the part of the Respondent in providing the
information. Further, delay, if any for not supplying the information with in mandated time period
to the Complainant is on the part of Deemed PIO, Shri B.S. Yadav, EE(B)-H/WZ.
The PIO has not provided any dispatch proof of the reply sent to the Applicant. The PIO ought to
have realized upon receipt of the notice of this Commission that the matter before the Commission
was that of non- supply of information and if the same had been provided, proof of dispatch of the
same should have been attached with the submissions.
Further on perusal of the records before the Commission it is found that in reply to two out of four
questions in the application the PIO has pointed out that the Applicant’s query pertains to the
Commissioner’s office.
Page 1 of 2
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to submit before this Commission a copy
of the Speed Post receipt(s) as proof of dispatch, before 20.04.2011. Further the PIO is
directed to transfer the RTI application with respect to question number 2 and 4 to the
concerned Commissioner’s office, as mentioned in the reply submitted before this
Commission. This should be done before 20.04.2011. Further the PIO shall provide
information with respect to question number 1 and 3 in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
application received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
This should be provided to the Complainant before 20.04.2011 with a copy to the
Commission.
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
30th March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RJ)
Page 2 of 2