CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00499/SG/0304
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00499/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Sunita Devi,
A/68, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi – 110027.
Respondent 1 : Executive Engineer &
Public Information Officer under RTI
Act 2005,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o. the Executive Engineer (M)-I,
Opp. Madhav Park, Rojouri Garden,
New Delhi - 110027.
RTI filed on : 15/01/2008 ID No. 01
PIO replied : 23/02/2008
First appeal filed on : 13/02/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 10/03/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 13/03/2008
The Appellant had sought information from MCD on the followings:
S.N. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. Please intimate the status of my above On the receipt of the letter the inference was
letters. communicated/informed to the son of the Appellant while
visiting the office of the undersigned.
2. Please intimate as to whether the Yes.
building in question has been inspected
so far by the concerned official or not.
3. Please intimate what is the prescribed There is no time limit to dispose off such cases. The status
time limit to dispose of such cases. was informed to the Appellant while visiting the office of the
undersigned.
4. Please give me the copy of above file In compliance of the direction issued by the H.Q. with prior
& noting there on till date. approval of the competent authority as well as elaborate in
the DMC Act. The copy of the circular handed over to the
Son of the Appellant accordingly informed the provision
under the Act.
5. Please intimate the complete procedure As above.
to dispose of such cases.
6. Please mention the clear date on which The necessary document under the provision of RTI Act, 05
the above application will be decided. shall be handed over after paying the necessary chages @ Rs.
2/page.
7. Please clear that, if any accident occurs Since the building is not eminent danger the sole
at site or building collapse. Who will responsibility lies with the owner/occupier of the premises
be the responsible for that? and shall be held responsible in case of any accident/collapse
at site. However, the owner/occupier may take the
measure/suitable necessary action under the preview of the
circular issued by the H.Q. which was handed over to the Son
of the Appellant.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
It has been observed that the information as has been sought by the Appellant is not covered
under the Life Liberty Clause. The reply provided to the Appellant in respect of the points for
which information was sought has been examined and it has been observed that for certain
points it has been informed that the “interface was communicated/informed to the Son of the
appellant Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta.” Instead of saying it was informed it could have been
communicated to the Appellant which was not done. This may be done within 10 days.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Amar Pal Singh on behalf of Navin Verma, PIO
The respondent has shown proof of having handed over the balance information to Mr.
Ashok Yadav against a letter of authority issued by the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25th November, 2008.