170 KSMeenaVsPWD Dlhi 13 05 3 1
5/13/2009 12:57:11 Deepak
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000170
Appellant: Shri K.S. Meena
Public Authority: Public Works Department, Delhi
(through Shri Jai Inder Sharma,
Executive Engineer)
Date of Hearing: 13/05/2009
Date of Decision: 13/05/2009
FACTS
:-
The background of the matter as per the version of the Appellant (a DANICS
officer), is that he was allotted Flat No.17/5, Rajpur Road, New Delhi, on 09/06/2008.
On paper, he took over the possession of the flat on 21/06/2008 but he took actual
possession on 31/07/2008 on the completion of civil works carried out by DDA. Thus,
there was a gap of 40 days between his occupation of flat on paper and actual occupation.
As he was occupying another Government flat during this period, the competent authority
proposes to impose penal rent on him. It is in this context that he has sought information
on six paras vide letter dated 29/09/2008. The main point on which he has sought
information is the quantum of civil works carried out by PWD during the period
01/04/2006 to 29/09/2008.
2. This was jointly responded to by an Assistant Engineer and a Junior Engineer
vide letter dated 20/11/2008. Dissatisfied with the information provided to him, the
Appellant had filed first Appeal vide letter dated 28/11/2008. However, as per
Commission’s record, there is no knowing whether the Appeal has been decided or not.
3. The matter was heard on 13/05/2009. The Appellant appeared before the
Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. Before I
deal with the merits of the case, I would like to comment on the procedural aspects of the
disposal of RTI application and the first Appeal. It is noticed that some information was
provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 20/11/2008 jointly signed by an Assistant
Engineer and a Junior Engineer. They do not seem to be the CPIO. Procedurally, this is
incorrect. The information should have been communicated to the Appellant under the
signatures of the CPIO. It is also noticed that the Appellant had filed first Appeal vide
letter dated 06/11/2008. The documents available in the Commission’s file indicate that
the appeal was summarily disposed of by some lowly official posted in the Office of the
Appellate Authority (i.e., the Chief Engineer, PWD) through an endorsement on the
Appeal papers themselves. This procedure is alien to law and speaks of casual and
lackadaisical approach adopted by the concerned officials working in the Office of the
Appellate Authority. The Commission takes an adverse view of the procedure adopted
170 KSMeenaVsPWD Dlhi 13 05 3 2
5/13/2009 12:57:11 Deepak
and directs that the statutory functions of CPIO and Appellate Authority must be
discharged by them alone, and by no one else. The power is not delegatable.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that some information had been provided
to the Appellant but he is not satisfied. It is the forceful submission of Shri Sharma that
the information in regard to the civil works carried out in the flat for the period
01/04/2006 to 29/09/2008 has already been provided to the Appellant and in proof there
of he produces his office records. The Appellant, however, would submit that no such
information has been provided to him.
DECISION
5. As the appellant denies having received any information from the CPIO, Shri Jai
Inder Sharma, current PIO, is hereby directed to allow inspection of the relevant records
by the Appellant and, thereafter, provide him copies of the documents as requested by
him, free of cost.
6. The order of the Commission may be complied with in four weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
Fax: 011 2610 62 76