Central Information Commission
Janak Lal Sahu vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 22 November, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई ददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/106946
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/113028
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/113030
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/116803
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/128507
CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/128505
CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/147287
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/128506
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/147290
CIC/DOURD/A/2018/164928
CIC/DSWGD/A/2018/147289/DOWCD
CIC/WACDD/A/2018/147288/DOWCD
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/147285
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/149199
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/173698
CIC/SDMCQ/A/2018/173699
Shri Janak Lal Sahu ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1.PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/Shah. North, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
EDMC
2. PIO/O/o. the Director-(Horticulture)/HQ.,
EDMC
3. PIO/Dy. Director-(Horticulture)/Shah-N,
EDMC
4. PIO/Dy. Director of Horticulture/Shah-S,
EDMC
5. PIO/Asstt. Director-(Horticulture)/Shah.-N,
EDMC, Horticulture Department
6. PIO/ E.E.-(M-I)/Shah-N,
EDMC
7. PIO/East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Hackney Carriage Department
8. PIO/ Administrative Officer/Shah-South,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation Shahdara
South Zone
Page 1 of 10
9. PIO/ Administrative Officer/Shah-South,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation, General
Branch Shahdara South Zone
10. PIO/Dy. Director-(Administration),
Delhi Urba Shelter Improvement Board
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
11. PIO/ E.E.-(C-8), Delhi Urban Shelter
Board (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
12. PIO/Dy. Director-(FAS),
Department of Social Welfare
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
13. PIO/Dy. Director-(Ladlee Schemes),
Department of Women & Child Development
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
14. PIO/ Administrative Officer-(CED)/HQ.,
EDMC
15. PIO/EDMC, Hackney Carriage Department
16. PIO/Dy. Commissioner-(HCD), South DMC,
Hackney Carriage Department/HQ
17. PIO/ Dy. Commissioner-(HCD), North DMC
Hackney Carriage Department/HQ
18. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/West Zone,
SDMC
19. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/South Zone,
SDMC
20. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/Najafgarh,
SDMC
21. PIO/ Asstt. Commissioner/Central Zone,
South DMC
Through:
Shri Manoj Jain, Dy. Director, Punarvas
Ms. Kamlesh Mata, Director
Shri S.K.Bhasin, EE(Coordination
Shri S.K.Varshney, Exe.Engg., DUSIB
Ms. Lakshmi Krishna, AR/CED, Udyog Sadan
Ms. Shivani Kapur Bareja, Nodal Officer RTIm DWCD
Shri Subhash Agarwal, RTI Consultant
Shri Krishan Pal Singh, ADH/Sh(N)
Shri Vijay Pal Singh
Shri Narpat Singh
Shyam Vir Singh EEmI
Shri P.N.Gandhi, AO, EDMC
Shri Kishan Swarup,
Page 2 of 10
Love Kumar, Admn Officer
Shri Kailash Chand, J.S.A. Nazafgarh zone
Shri Rajesh Katalia, AO/General Branch, SDMC
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2019
Date of Decision : 22.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
106946 07.11.2017 -- 22.12.2017 --
113028 03.10.2017 14.11.2017 30.12.2017 --
113030 03.10.2017 02.11.2017 08.11.2017 --
116803 03.10.2017 07.11.2017 17.11.2017 30.11.2017
128507 12.12.2017 25.01.2018 01.02.2018 17.04.2018
128505 18.01.2018 27.02.2018 06.03.2018 --
147287 18.01.2018 18.04.2018 09.05.2018 --
128506 11.01.2018 16.02.2018 19.02.2018 --
147290 02.04.2018 25.04.2018 07.05.2018 --
164928 02.04.2018 11.06.2018 02.07.2018 19.07.2018
147289 05.03.2018 23.04.2018 02.05.2018 21.05.2018
147288 05.03.2018 10.04.2018 25.04.2018 14.05.2018
147285 05.04.2018 16.05.2018 04.06.2018 --
149199 05.04.2018 18.05.2018 07.05.2018 --
173698 14.08.2018 13.09.2018 17.09.2018 15.11.2018
173699 28.08.2018 12.10.2018 01.10.2018 --
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/106946 Appellant vide RTI application dated 07.11.2017 sought information on sixpoints:-
1. Provide action taken report on complaint dated 11.09.2017.
2. Number of relief letters issued under Teh Bazari for food vending within GTB Hospital Complex. Provide copy of the relief letters.
3. How many rehdi patri walas have been issued stay order by the court. And other related information.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.12.2017. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 10Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The instant case has been withdrawn by the Appellant vide his written application submitted during hearing, copy whereof has been placed on record before the Commission.
Decision The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/113028 CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/113030 CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/116803 Appellant vide same RTI applications dated 03.10.2017 sought information on seventeen points, inter alia:-
1. Provide name address and contact details of all complainants who have submitted their complaints for construction of bridge Sundar Nagari dispensary and social welfare department from 01.02.2017 to 30.09.2017.
2. How many complaints have been received by EDMC from 01.02.2017 to 30.09.2017 for construction of bridge? Provide the copy of the complaint along with name and address of the complainant.
3. Provide name, designation and name of the department from which complaints have been received for construction of bridge. And other related information.
PIO/Horticulture (HQ) vide letter dated 14.11.2017 transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIOs under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
PIO vide letter dated 02.11.2017 in respect of File no. CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/113030provided point-wise information to the Appellant.
PIO/Shah. (North) Zone EDMC vide letter dated 07.11.2017 in respect of File No. CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/116803provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.12.2017, 08.11.2017 and 17.11.2017. In respect of file No. CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/116803FAA vide order dated 30.11.2017directed PIO to provide the information within 15 days and also advised the Appellant to file his first appeal with the concerned department to whom RTI application has been transferred.
Feeling aggrievedover the non-compliance of FAO,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission has been received from the PIO vide letter dated 14.11.2019 in respect of File No. CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/113028 Page 4 of 10 The Appellant has withdrawn the aforesaid three appeals by withdrawing the RTI application dated 03.10.2017, out of which the three appeals arose. Copy of the application for withdrawal whereof has been placed on record before the Commission.
Decision The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/128507 CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/128505 CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/147287 Appellant vide RTI application dated 12.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 sought information on twenty two points:-
1. Provide the number of employees in e-rickshaw department of MCD along with their name, designation and mobile number.
2. For how long is an employee required to be posted at one place.
3. Provide the details of the department from which employees were deputed to e-rickshaw department. Provide list with their name and designation.
And other related information.
CPIO/ Hackney Carriagevide letter dated 25.01.2018 provided information against Points No. 11 and 22.
PIO/Shah. (South) Zone vide letter dated 27.02.2018 in respect of File No. CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/128505 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
In respect of File No. CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/147287,PIO vide letter dated 18.04.2018 provided information against points No. 11 and 22 to the Appellant Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 01.02.2018, 06.03.2018and 09.05.2018. In respect of File No. CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/128507,FAA vide order dated 17.04.2018 directed PIO/Hackney Carriage EDMC to transfer the RTI application to the North DMC. In compliance with the FAO, a reply received from the CPIO/Hackney Carriagevide letter dated 17.04.2018 transferred the RTI application to the North DMC.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission has been received from the PIO vide letter dated 14.11.2019 in respect of File No. CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/113028 Page 5 of 10 The Appellant has withdrawn the aforesaid three appeals by withdrawing the RTI application, out of which the three appeals arose. Copy of the application for withdrawal whereof has been placed on record before the Commission.
Decision The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/128506 Appellant vide RTI application dated 11.01.2018 sought information on ten points, inter alia:-
1. Provide details of action taken by different officers on letter dated 12.12.2017.
2. Provide detailed movement report on letter dated 12.12.2017.
3. Provide copy of letters dated 30.11.2017 and 25.01.2018 translated in Hindi. And other related information.
PIO/EDMC vide letter dated 16.02.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.02.2018. Feeling aggrievedwith no response received from the FAA,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The instant case has been withdrawn by the Appellant vide his written application submitted during the hearing, copy whereof has been placed on record before the Commission.
Decision The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/147290 CIC/DOURD/A/2018/164928 Appellant vide RTI same application dated 02.04.2018 sought information on fifteen points:-
1. When was DUSIB established and by what name was it known earlier?
2. How divisions does DUSIB have? Provide their name and address?
3. Provide their name, designation and address of the employees who had been working in different zones of DUSIB from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2018.
And other related information.
PIO vide letter dated 25.04.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
In respect of File No. CIC/DOURD/A/2018/164928, PIO vide letter dated 11.06.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Page 6 of 10Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 07.05.2018 and 02.07.2018. FAA vide order dated 19.07.2018in respect of File No. CIC/DOURD/A/2018/164928stated as follows:-
"PIO/EE/C-08 directed to get inspection of the desired record in his office on 24.07.2018 at 2.30 PM. The Appellant was satisfied and hence the case is closed".
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and the Respondent has submitted that inspection of records was duly carried out in terms of the FAA's order. Since voluminous records running into 1125 pages were identified by the Appellant, photocopy charges were sought to be deposited by the Appellant. However, no charges were deposited by the Appellant citing that the response/information was delayed and hence he demands the same free of cost.
Decision Upon carrying out detailed hearing in the case, the Commission is convinced that the RTI application has been handled appropriately providing due access to the information. Considering the voluminous records sought by the Appellant, the fees charged by the Respondent is justified. Accordingly, no further action is warranted in this case. The appeal is disposed off with no further directions.
CIC/DSWGD/A/2018/147289/DOWCD CIC/WACDD/A/2018/147288/DOWCD Appellant vide RTI application dated 02.04.2018 and 05.03.2018 sought information on ten points:-
1. Provide details of schemes being carried out by Social Welfare Department.
2. What are the types of pensions issued by the Social Welfare Department?
3. Provide details of the Ladli Scheme in Hindi. Etc. PIO vide letter dated 23.04.2018 provided information against points No. 1, 2, 3 and 7.
In respect of File No. CIC/WACDD/A/2018/147288/DOWCD, PIO vide letter dated 10.04.2018 provided information on points No. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 02.05.2018 and 25.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 21.05.2018 disposed off the first appeal without any direction as the information sought is available on the website of the Public Authority.
FAA vide order dated 14.05.2018 in respect of File No. CIC/WACDD/A/2018/147288/DOWCD upheld the reply of PIO's letter dated 10.04.2018 and disposed off the first appeal.
Page 7 of 10Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission has been received from the PIO/Dy. Director(Ladli Scheme) vide letter dated 15.11.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/WACDD/A/2018/147288/DOWCD The Appellant has withdrawn the aforesaid two appeals by withdrawing the RTI application, out of which both the appeals arose. Copy of the application for withdrawal has been placed on record before the Commission.
Decision The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/147285 CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/149199 Appellant vide same RTI application dated 05.04.2018 sought information on seven points:-
1. When and by whose order was EDMC formed? Provide copy of order in Hindi.
2. Under which rule and at what interval does EDMC transfer its officers/employees? Provide copy of the rules in Hindi.
3. Which officers have represented EDMC in court in the matter of e-rickshaws from its inception till 31.03.2018. Etc PIO vide letter dated 16.05.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
In respect of File No. CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/149199, PIO vide letter dated 18.05.2018 provided information on points no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 04.06.2018 and 07.05.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from FAA,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission has been received from the PIO/Hackney Carriage Deptt. vide letter dated 13.11.2019 in respect of File No. CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/149199 The Appellant has withdrawn the aforesaid two appeals by withdrawing the RTI application, out of which both the appeal arose. Copy of the application for withdrawal has been placed on record before the Commission.
Decision The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.Page 8 of 10
CIC/EDMCS/A/2018/173698 Appellant vide same RTI application dated 14.08.2018 sought information on five points:-
1. Provide copy of letter dated 11.03.2016 in Hindi.
2. In how many languages are the officers of EDMC directed to issue their circulars? Provide copy of concerned orders.
3. Who issues directions to the officers of EDMC to issue their circulars in English? Provide copy of concerned orders. And other related information.
PIO vide letter dated 13.09.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 17.09.2018. FAA vide order dated 15.11.2018 directed the PIO to provide information on points No. 2 and 3 within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing.
Decision Considering that the main grievance of the appellant is non-compliance of the FAA's order, the matter is hereby remanded to the FAA, to ensure compliance of his order dated 15.11.2018 and PIO present during hearing is directed to submit proof of compliance of FAA's order before the Commission by 20.12.2019.
CIC/SDMCQ/A/2018/173699 Appellant vide same RTI application dated 28.08.2018 sought information on seven points, inter alia:-
1. Provide letters dated 13.06.2013, 19.03.2013 and 19.02.2013 in Hindi.
2. In how many languages are the officers of SDMC directed to issue their circulars? Provide copy of concerned orders.
3. Who issues directions to the officers of SDMC to issue their circulars in English? Provide copy of concerned orders. And other related information.
PIO vide letter dated 12.10.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 01.10.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 9 of 10Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission has been received from the PIO/Hackney Carriage Deptt.(HQ) vide letter dated 19.11.2019. Respondent from Najafgarh division is present and has submitted a communication dated 17.09.2018 whereby they had replied to the Appellant. Appellant has pointed out that while North MCD vide letter dated 19.11.2019 has provided similar information by giving details of employees in the Hackney Carriage Department, the South MCD has denied dissemination of the information.
Decision After hearing the parties and perusal of records, the Commission directs PIO/Hackney Carriage Deptt.(HQ) to provide complete information on the same lines like the North MCD within four weeks of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 10 of 10