Central Information Commission
Mr. Jai Narain vs New Delhi Municipal Council, (Law ... on 26 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00532/SG/3858
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00532/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Jai Narain
G-316,
Nauroji Nagar,
New Delhi 110029.
Respondent : Mr. Gopal Krisnna
APIO
New Delhi Municipal Council, (Law
Department)
Palika Kendra, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 06/08/2007
PIO replied : 19/10/2007
First appeal filed on : 07/09/2007
First Appellate Authority order : Not Mentioned
Complaint filed received on : 15/10/2007
Information sought:
The appellant in his RTI application has sought information regarding an application filed by him to NDMC requesting to solve the problem of water logging in front of his house. Information was pertaining as to what action has been taken on the complaint filed by him, who is the official responsible for finding out a permanent solution to this problem, till what time this problem can be solved and why the pipes haven't been cleaned to solve this problem.
The PIO's Reply:
The PIO stated that SWD staff had cleared the GT of RCC pipe and connected the same with the rain harvesting pit which pertains to CPWD. Therefore his complaint was transferred to CPWD for appropriate action. This reply was given to the Appellant much beyond the stipulated period of 30days after the First Appeal had been filed.
The First Appellate Authority's Order:
Not Mentioned.
Since there was no reply from the PIO and the appellate authority the complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission on 15/10/2007. The Commission issued a notice on 21/01/2009. Subsequently the FAA responded to the Notice stating that necessary action has been taken on the complaint filed by the Appellant to NDMC and information regarding the action to be taken was given to the Appellant beforehand. This submission was made on the basis of record available and the Appellant was invited to seek any further information. The Appellant not satisfied with the information provided, filed a complaint before the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Jai Narain Respondent: Mr. Gopal Krisnna, APIO and Mr. T.R.Meena, CPIO, Mr. H.P.Singh CPIO The appellant says that in the time it has taken the Commission to hear the matter, the public authority has been more efficient than the Commission and has already resolved the problem making the information irrelevant.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information has become irrelevant due to the Commission taking a long time to decide the matter.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 26 June 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)