Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Bhagat Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 November, 2008

Central Information Commission
Shri Bhagat Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 November, 2008
                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                              Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
                                     Tel.: + 91 11 26161796

                                                     Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01431/SG/00182
                                                                Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01431

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Shri Bhagat Singh
31, Aliganj,
Kotal Mubarakpur,
New Delhi-110003.

Respondent 1                            :      APIO,
                                               Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                               Office of Asstt. Commissioner,
                                               Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,
                                               New Delhi- 110024.

RTI filed on                            :      20/07/2007
PIO replied                             :      16/08/2007
First appeal filed on                   :      19/09/2007
First Appellate Authority order         :      not mentioned
Second Appeal filed on                  :      12/11/2007

Detail of information required:

The appellant had asked about information had been filed application ID No 1019 dated 23/07/2007.
The appellant had filed a RTI application seeking information about a MOU and its
implementation between MCD and Manushi Nagrik Adhikar Manch.:


   Information sought             Information provided         Reasons for appeal

1 Contribution of                 Attested copy is
  Manushi (Do not                 Enclosed
  attach a copy of
  MOU).

2 What part of           the Contribution of Manushi           There is no board at Project site
  contribution           has SangathanCan be                   giving      this   information.
  been     fulfilled      by seen at projectSite               Complaints have been made
  Manushi                                                      Of Manushi not       Fulfilling it
                                                               obligations.

3 What part of            the As (2) above                     Answer is not being Given since
  contribution             of                                  Manushi has not      fulfilled its
  Manushi      has        not                                  obligations and no action has
  been fulfilled?                                              been taken by MCD
 4 Details of                      The attested copy Of
  contribution to be              MOU can be
  made by MCD.                    Consulted.

5 Details                  of As      per        MOU,
  contribution          Made Contribution can be
  by MCD                      Seen at project site

6 Details                   of As (5) above                     Since MCD has not given NOC
  contribution             Not                                  To stall holders as per the MOU,
  fulfilled by MCD                                              They are stealing electricity
                                                                even after three years.

7 Reasons for MCD not Not applicable
Fulfilling its
contribution

8 Reasons for Manushi This question pertains To
not fulfilling its Manushi Sangathan
contribution

The Appellate Authority ordered:

Not mentioned
The first appellate authority did not give any order hence the second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Shri Bhagat Singh
Respondent : Mr. R.K.Parashar on behalf of Gyanesh Bharti PIO at the time of the RTI
application.

On points 1 & 4 the appellants agreed that the information was available in the MOU which had been
provided to them. For points 2 & 5 the PIO was directed to provide the information based on records
of the contribution made by Manushi Nagrik Adhikar Manch and MCD. Points 3 & 6 these are
obvious deductions from the other informations. The respondents pointed out that Points 7 & 8 do not
qualify as information unless there are any records which show reasons for not fulfilling the required
contributions.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO will provide the information for points 2 & 5 based on records available. In case no
records are available he will state this clearly. He will also seek records from Manushi
Nagrik Adhikar Manch about the contributions made by them and if any records are
obtained from Manushi Nagrik Adhikar Manch these will be given to the appellant. All
this information will be given to the appellant before 25th November, 2008.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
7th November, 2008