CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000313/2459
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000313
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Manju Mukhija,
811-A, Pocket-2, Pashchim Puri,
New Delhi-110063.
Respondent : Supdt. Engineer(E&M) & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Office of the Supndt. Engineer(E&M),
B.S. Jafar Marg, Ambedkar Stadium,
Delhi Gate, New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 24/09/2008 APIO : ------------- First Appeal filed on : 31/10/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 03/12/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 02/03/2009
The appellant had asked in RTI application regarding Empanelment of
Agencies for hiring of CNG operated EURO-III Model Commercial Vehicles
on Hire for the officers of MCD for a periods of three years in response to NIT
No. 17 (2008-09) vide ref. No. EE(E&M)/II/Engg/2008-09/1367 dated
16.07.2008: reg:-
S. No. Information sought. The PIO replied.
1. Whether Mukhija Travels whose Mukhija Travels has been awarded
prop is the applicant was inducted as the work on lowes basis.
transporter in the vehicles to the
concept of Hiring of vehicles
emerged in 2003 for providing the
Hired EE(E&M) CSE-II/WO2003-
04/961 dated 16.06.2003.
2. Whether Mukhija Travels is still on Mukhija Travels is on the
the empanelment of the MCD on the empanelment of MCD for
date of application for providing providing hiring of Euro-II car/van
hired vehicles to the Mpl officers and CNG operated.
Municipal Magistrates.
3. Whether being a renowned Any person / contractor /
transporter of the MCD a reference manufacturer of such vehicle /
vide no. EE(E&M)/II/Engg/2008- registered contractor / reputed
09/1367 dated 16.07.2008 was made firms / reputed transporters etc. as
by the EE(E&M) II/for participation applicable having minimum 6
in the NIT no. 17 (2008-09) on the number, commercial purpose
above cited subject matter. CNG operated Euro-III 2006 or
above model Maruti car / van /
wagon-R in their own name will
be eligible.
4. How many parties purchased the Total-3.
tender document while depositing the
required EMD amount of Rs. 2.00
Lacs.
5. How many tenders were received Manually-3, online-NIL.
Manual or through on-line.
6. Whether a pre bid meeting was fixed The pre-bid meeting was fixed on
on 28.07.2008 at 12.30 P.M. in the 28.07.2008 and was for any
chamber of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, clarification required by the
SE (E&M), Ambedkar Stadium New biddrers.
Delhi in order to know the hardship
being faced by the bidders in
response to the terms and conditions
of the NIT?
7. How many bidders participated in the Three.
said pre bid meeting.
8. Whether after the deliberations, The written submission was
discussions a written submission was submitted by all the three.
made by the participating bidders for
considerations of certain clauses of
the terms and conditions.
9. Whether one of the submissions was There had been the submission for
for relaxing and reducing the relaxation for reduction in number
ownership of vehicles from 06 to 03 of CNG Maruti car/ van / wagon-
for eligibility purpose. R ownership by M/s Mukhija
Travels and M/s Soni Sales &
Services only.
10. What was the last date and time for Last date of submission has been
submission of the tender. 1.8.08, 3.00 PM.
11. Whether any communication was The department has intimated to
conveyed in block and white to the all concerned in the meeting that
participating bidders who attended the conditions for relaxation etc.
the Pre Bid meeting and made could not be met as this has been
written submission. During the the prime requirement.
period from 28.07.2008 to
30.07.2008.
12. How many parties finally Three.
participated in the tendering process.
13. Party wise details of RC’s enclosed The documents enclosed with the
with tender document showing their tender may be seen in this office
ownership of the vehicles. on any day with prior information.
14 Current status of the finalization of Proposal is in process.
the tender for empanelment of the
agencies.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“On scrutiny of the documents which reveals that the PIO, has already
provided information to the appellant, but the applicant was not satisfied with the
reply furnished in response to point no. 13 of his application. The representative
PIO was asked to provide the information against charges to the applicant for all
the documents he as asked for within 10 days.”
Inspite of this the appellant did not receive any communication from the PIO.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 15 April, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been
implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 April, 2009. He will
also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26th March, 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)