CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00305/SG/1802Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00305/SG
Complainant : Mr. A.N Prasad
A-311, Meena Bagh
New Delhi-110087
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall Chandni Chowk
New Delhi-110006
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. A.N. Prasad had filed a RTI application with the PIO, MCD, Delhi on 22/01/2008
asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30
days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission. The Commission issued
a notice to the PIO on 20/12/2008 asking him to supply the information and sought an
explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the
complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the
information to the complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be derived is that
the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per
the provisions of the RTI Act. His failure to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that
he has no reasons for the refusal of information.
Commission’s Decision dated February 19, 2009:
“The Complaint is allowed.
The PIO will send the complete information to the complainant before March 12,
2009. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The
PIO is therefore, asked to submit a written explanation showing cause as to why penalty
should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20
(1) & (2) of the RTI Act before March 17, 2009.
If the information has already been supplied to the complainant, furnish a copy of the same to
the Commission with your written submission.”
Note: The Complainant vide his letter dated 06/05/2009 informed the Commission that the
order of the Commission had not been complied and no information has been supplied. The
Commission vide showcause notice dated 25/11/2009 had asked the Respondent to be present
before the Commission on 21/12/2009 to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should
not be levied on him alongwith proofs of information having supplied to the Complainant.
Facts leading to Showcause hearing on 18 May 2010:
During the Showcause hearing on 21/12/2009 Mr. K. C. Mittal O/o ADC(HQ) stated
that the RTI application dated 22/01/2008 filed by the Complainant was transferred to the E-
in-C on 28/01/2008 and Mr. A. S. Chauhan submitted written submission of the PIO & ADC,
Engineering Department, Mr. Raj Pal Singh and Identified Mr. Ravi Dass, Engineer-in-Chief
as the person responsible for not supplying the information. Hence a Showcause notice dated
10/04/2010 was issued to Mr. Ravi Dass E-in-C, Town Hall to appear before the Commission
on 18/05/2010 to showcause why penalty should not be levied on him for not complying the
order of the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause on Hearing 18 May 2010:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. A.N Prasad;
Respondent: Mr. Ravi Dass, Engineer-in-Chief, Town Hall; Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE-I
(West Zone); Mr. A. S. Chauhan APIO-Engineering (HQ); Mr. K. P. Singh, CE(C),
Ambedkar Stadium;
The Respondent has stated that in this RTI application the Appellant had sought the details of
the movement of the FAA’s order. The order of the FAA was about a RTI application of Mr.
Prasad filed in 2007. The Respondent claims that the officers were confused between these
two. He states that this confusion of realized just 15 days back and when the movement was
attempted to be traced, they were not able trace the movement beyond October 2007. He
states that at that time there was reorganization in MCD and they are not able to trace the
movement of the papers after this. The Respondent admits that this is a serious lapse and
states that the Municipal Commissioner has now initiate a process to trace the movement of
all papers and a weekly statement has been submitted to the Commissioner.
The appellant states that he has been pursuing the matter for years and feels that he should be
compensated for pursing this matter. It is apparent that it is MCD’s lack of organization
which has been responsible for this. The Respondent was asked if he had any reasons to offer
why the Appellant should not be compensated. The Respondent Mr Ravi Dass admits that
there has been a mistake in MCD.
In view of this the Commission orders that the Appellant should be given a compensation of
Rs.3000/- for the loss and determent suffered by him in pursing this matter to get MCD to
organize itself better.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. Ravi Dass to ensure that the cheque of Rs.3000/- is sent to the
Appellant before 10 June 2010. The Commission also directs Mr. Ravi Dass to ensure that
the weekly area statement of papers should be displayed on the website of MCD every month
in discharge of its duties under Section -4 of the RTI ACT.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 May 2010