Central Information Commission
CIC/SG/A/2009/001473-AD
Dated March 25, 2010
Adjunct to : Shri Vijay Pal Singh
Name of the Public Authority : Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Adjunct to CIC Decision of even No. dt.27.8.09 and 30.12.09
Background
1. The Commission received a complaint dated 21.2.10 from Shri Vijay Singh in which he
alleged that Shri Kawar Singh, DEO & PIO had issued false information without any certified
copy of the documents. The Commission vide letter dated 22.2.10 directed the Respondents
to comply with the decision of the Commission by 15.3.10 under intimation to both the
Commission and the Complainant. The CPIO was also asked to appear before the
Commission on 25.3.10 at 10.30 am to explain why this should not be registered as a
complaint u/s 18(1) of the RTI Act.
The Order passed by the Commission on 27.8.09 is as follows:
“……i) The Commission in the light of the submissions directs the CPIO to provide
complete information to the Appellant:
(a) By sending a circular to all the schools under MCD indicating the
information required from them
(b) Collecting the information from the agency from whom the Judo mates
were purchased including number of mats purchased by each school,
the details of the cheque through which the payment was made.
Information to be provided by 26.9.09
ii. The Commission also directs the CPIO to show cause why the Appellate Authority’s
orders were not complied with and why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day (subject to
a maximum of Rs.25000) should not be imposed on him for not furnishing the
information within the statutory period…”
This was followed by the subsequent Order passed by the Commission on 30.12.09 as
follows:
“… the Commission directs the Respondent to provide within 10 days from the
date of hearing, the missing information from the schools about the Judo mats
which were purchased, in a format decided during the hearing including number
of mats purchased by each school; name of principal; name of school; whether
payment was made by cheque or cash, and if by cheque, the Cheque number;
and the number of the bill. The information to be provided to the Complainant
th
by 30 January 2010...."
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for
March 25, 2010.
3. Ms. Seema Sharma, AEO and Shri Anil Kumar, School Inspector represented the Public
Authority.
Decision
4. The documents on record indicate that the Respondents vide the letter dated 14.01.2010
had already provided information in terms of the direction passed by the Commission in its
order dated 30.12.09. The entire information in from the schools about the purchase of Judo
mats purchased in the format as directed by the Commission including the number of mats
purchased by each school; name of principal; name of school; whether payment was made
by cheque or cash, and if by cheque, the Cheque number; and the number of the bill had
been annexed alongwith the covering letter dated 14.01.2010. The same information was
once again sent by the letter dated 25.03.2010 to the Commission. This was followed by
another communication dated 26.03.2010 whereby the Respondent explained that there was
no delay in furnishing of the information while replying to the Show cause issued by the
Commission. The Respondent has submitted a letter dated 11.10.2007 issued by the then
PIO, DC, South that is the DEO/AEO/SH-S which demonstrates that despite the Education
Department having furnished response to all the 9 queries of the Appellant and clearly
instructed the PIO to allow inspection of all related documents between 9.30 am to 5.30 pm
on any working day, the applicant failed to approach the concerned office for inspection. It
has further been explained in the said letter dated 11.10.2007 that while the information
sought was voluminous, due to lack of adequate manpower, the Education Deptt. /SH-S was
not in a position to collect all documents from all 59 schools. Therefore, information as could
be collected were provided to the Appellant within the mandatory period. For the remaining
information, if any, sought by the Appellant, he was requested to inspect the original records
of the particular school, with prior intimation.
5. It is further observed from perusal of records that in response to the Commission’s directions
dated 22.2.10, the APIO sent a letter dated 15.3.10 to the Commission stating that the
Complainant had applied for information to DC/Sh-S, Karkardooma, Delhi and in the
application, there were 9 questions in total wherein he had sought information related to
MCD schools. It has been contended by the Respondent that vide letter dated 1.10.07, the
Appellant was invited to inspect all related documents but he did not turn up. By his
subsequent letter dated 11.10.07, the Appellant approached the then PIO/DC/SH-S
regarding submission of the incomplete information whereas by the letter dated 27.11.07,
the Appellant stated that the PIO had not submitted complete information. The APIO added
that in all the above mentioned letters, since the information was being sought through
DC/SH-S (Shahadra) about MCD schools, it appeared that the information was to be given
about MCD schools falling within the SH-S zone only. It was only from the letter dated
22.2.10, that the Respondents realized that the Appellant is actually seeking information
from not just Shahdara South Zone but from the rest of 11 zones also which has yet to be
submitted. The APIO further added that in none of the above letters as also in the
RTI application has the Complainant ever mentioned that the information has to be
submitted for all 12 zones of MCD. The APIO added that for seeking information from
other 11 zones, the Appellant will have to file a fresh application to the PIO (Edn) of the
concerned zone.
6. The Commission on perusal of the RTI application and the submissions on record observed
that the Appellant had indeed filed the RTI application with the PIO, Shahadra Zone and had
indeed not sought information in any of his letters from all the zones and that it was
understood by all that information about MCD schools only in Shahadra South zone were
sought and hence were required to be provided. In his complaint to the Commission the
Appellant has sought information from all the remaining 11 zones which is additional
information being sought at a later stage, after two hearings at the Commission. Hence, the
Commission, while observing and holding that complete information has been furnished to
the Appellant regarding MCD schools in the Shahadra South Zone, advises him to file a fresh
RTI application in order to seek information from other zones.
7. The case is disposed of on the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Vijay Pal Singh
H.No.1449/18A
Durga Puri
Loni road
Shahdara
Delhi 110 093
2. The PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Dy. Education Officer
Kanti Nagar
Shahdara South Zone
Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Addl. Commissioner (HQ)
Town Hall
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group,