Central Information Commission Judgements

.Shri S. P. S. Dhaka vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2010

Central Information Commission
.Shri S. P. S. Dhaka vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2010
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                          Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00525/SG/9469
                                                            Complaint No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00525/SG

Complainant                       :           Mr. S.P. S. Dhaka,
                                              House no. 213-C, Ward no. 2,
                                              Mehrauli, New Delhi

Respondents                       :           Mr. Rajesh Taneja
                                              PIO & SE
                                              Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                              Under Seva Nagar Flyover,
                                              South Zone, Seva Nagar
                                              New Delhi

RTI application filed on               :      19/07/2006
RTI Transferred to MCD on              :      27/07/2006 & 18/08/2006 to Chief Eng and DC
PIO's MCD Replied on                   :      07/11/2006
First appeal filed on                  :      31/10/2006
First Appellate Authority order        :      Not mentioned

The RTI application was filed with Chief Secretary, GNCTD on 19/07/2010 regarding letter addressed to
Chief Secretary on 02/08/2004 and 30/09/2004 :
 Sl.            Information Sought                                  Reply of the PIO
      Daily progress made on the complaint As and when an application under R.T.I. Act is received
      so far i.e. when did the application by the PlO of) any zone/deptt., the same is forwarded to
      reached which officer and for how long concerned department for its reply. As soon as the instant
      it stay with the officer and what did ID. was received, the Field Officers of Works Department
      he/she do during that period.             inspected the site and their Site Inspection Report is as
                                                under:
                                                The desired works by the applicant regarding dismantling
                                                of lane about 2 feet to 2 feet 6 inches down from its
                                                existing level, cannot be executed due to the fact that
                                                about 200 houses in nearby vicinity would be affected in
                                                respect of their services i.e. Sewerage System,
                                                underground electrical cables, water lines and their
                                                foundations. Hence, technically, 4he improvement work
                                                as suggested by the applicant is not feasible.

      Name of the officers            who   were 1f inspection was carried out by the concerned officer
      supposed to take action.                   Shri Chauhan, J.E.

      What action would be taken against the      It is the hypothetical question unless and until
      officers who had not taken action.          facts are brought to the knowledge. Only then, any
                                                  specific comments could be offered after seeking
                                                  permission by the competent authority.
      By when the work would be done              Please see reply No.1.
                                                                                         Page 1 of 2
          List           of          all          the                         The applicant be requested to contact PIO/Engg. H.Q. for
         applications/returns/petitions/grievances                           the desired information for his inspection of documents so
         received after my application was                                   that the desired information could be given to him as
         received. The list should contain the                               nothing specific has been mentioned by him.
         following information:
                 -            Name of
                 applicant/taxpayer/petitioner/aggr
                 ieved person.
                 -            Receipt no.
                 -            Date of
                 application/return/petition/grieva
                 nce
                 -            Date of disposal
         Copy or print out of those portions or                              Attached
         records contains details of receipt of the
         above application / returns / petitions /
         grievances.
         Give reasons for out of turn disposal of                            Attached
         applicants/returns/petitions/
         By when would vigilance enquiries be                                Not related to work department.
         initiated in the above matter

Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was provided to the appellant.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr. S.P. S. Dhaka;

Respondent: Mr. S. K. Meena, AE-III on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Taneja, PIO & SE
The information has been provided to the appellant including the file notings evidencing the
movement of the file. The Vigilance department has also stated that they are not going to conduct any
vigilance inquiry on this. The appellant is aggrieved with this but under Right to Information the
Commission can only ensure that the information is provided to the appellant.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)

Page 2 of 2