Central Information Commission
Mr.A.P. Jain vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 18 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001444/13515
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001444
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A.P. Jain
B-1/9, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi- 110057
Respondent : PIO/DDH
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, South Zone Green Park, Zonal Building, New Delhi- 110016 RTI application filed on : 29-09-2010, 13-12-2010 PIO replied on : 3-12-2010, 3-02-2011 First Appeal filed on : 24-02-2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 17-03-2011 Second Appeal received on : 30-05-2011 Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. Is it true that a structure resembling a Water fountain was built by There is a waterfall MCD about six years ago from the funds allotted to Shri Ashok Singh, existing in the park which MLA of the area in the park situated at the junction of street B-3 and is situated at street B-3, B street B-8 in 'B' block of Vasant Vihar? block, Vasant Vihar.
2. Is it true that no provision was made for the supply of water for running Yes of this so called water fountain when it was built and also that no provision has been made thereafter since its construction till date ?
3. Is it true that no connection was made with either the sewer line or the Yes storm water drainage to drain out water from this structure?
4. Since the so called fountain built six years back has not been put to use There is no connection.
and due to shortage of water with MCD/Jal Board, is there any proposal to supply water to this shabby looking structure in future?
5. In case there is a proposal, is there any other proposal with MCD to put This is a policy matter and this structure built with public money to use ? comes under the headquarters.
6. The name of the MLA who got this fountain built from the money Waterfall constructed by allotted to him by the MCD for development in his zone and total M.L.A. fund of Shri amount of money spent on the construction of the said fountain. Ashok.
7. Who is responsible for execution of the incomplete project resulting in Presently there is no waste of public money? Does the MCD propose to take any action in waterfall connection and the matter against the defaulter? water fall is not functional.
8. Due to shortage of water with MCD/Jal Board no water connection has There is a new proposal of M.C.D. for demolishing the been given to run the fountain in the past six years. Is there any other defunct water fall after the proposal with MCD to supply water to run this fountain? recommendation of Area Councillor and approval of DOH.
9. Since the so called fountain built over six years ago could not be put to As per above.
use for want of a water connection, is there any other proposal to put this structure to use built with public money ?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO is incomplete, irrelevant and not related to the questions asked. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO/DDH is directed to provide a reviewed reply to the appellant within 2 weeks.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No reply has been furnished till date by the PIO/DDH.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. A.P. Jain;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant states that after the order of the FAA on 17/03/2011 directing PIO/DDH (who was present during the first appellate hearing) to provide a reviewed reply to the Appellant within two weeks no communications has been received by the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/DDH is directed to provide the information as per the order of the FAA to the Appellant before 05 August 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 12 August 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against them. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 18 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (PK))