Central Information Commission
Mr. Ajay Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002137/9365
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002137
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajay Gupta
C - 66, Ashok Vihar Phase - I,
Delhi - 110052
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of Executive Engineer (Shahdara North, M- III) LIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi - 110093.
RTI application filed on : 25/03/2010 PIO replied : 13/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 28/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 03/07/2010 Second Appeal received on : 27/07/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. If the mentioned work in the application was Not. completed well in stipulated time or not
2. If not what was the reason for the delay and who is Reason was due to non-clearance of site responsible for the same and slow progress of the contractor. As per manual the delay in work from the part of the contractor is 1% per day , penalty to be imposed by the competent authority.
3. Any correspondence made to the contractor during the Numbers of times correspondence made to execution of the work the contractor verbally and telephonically.
4. What time record entries of the work were recorded in The record entries in the MB recorded at MB? the time of the execution.
5. Were the record entries made on the basis of the As Above. execution of work (Per day) or recorded in one day after execution of work?
6. Does not record entries and abstract entered without Does not fall under the jurisdiction of the date show malafide intentions of the officials? RTI Act.
7. It's been more than five months since the work As Above. completed but the bill is not passed till today. Why?
8. Complete bill entered in MB but not passed shows the As Above. malafide intentions of the concerned officials if any action would be against them.
9. Who is responsible not to pass the bill? As Above.
Page 1 of 210 Who will be held responsible to compensate mental As Above.
harassment and financial loss?
11 If who ever is held responsible would be punished? As Above. .
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal dismissed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and appeal dismissed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Ajay Gupta;
Respondent: Absent;
The PIO has provided information but is now asked to provide the following additional information:
1- Query-2: Attested photocopy of the Time Extension of the work. 2- Query-3: The PIO will state whether any written communication was sent to the contractor or not.
3- Query-4: Photocopy of the bills prepared in the Measurement Book. 4- Query-7: if there are any reasons on the record for nonpayment of the bill, photocopy of the recorded reasons will be provided. If there are no reasons on the records this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before 05 October 2010.
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 15 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) Page 2 of 2