Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ramesh Kardam vs Transport Department Delhi on 24 July, 2020

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                  बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.                    CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/168884

Shri Ramesh Kardam                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,Transport Department                                      ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi-110054

PIO,Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd., DTIDC, O/o The Executive
Director, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi - 110006
Through: Sh. Vijay Kumar - EE- DTIDC

Date of Hearing                          :    22.07.2020
Date of Decision                         :    24.07.2020

Information Commissioner                 :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on                  :    06.06.2018
PIO replied on                            :    No Reply
First Appeal filed on                     :    04.09.2018
First Appellate Order on                  :    No Reply
2ndAppeal/complaint received on           :    26.11.2018

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 06.06.2018 seeking information on seven points regarding the statue of Maharana Pratap installed in Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere Gate on 09.05.2018.

1. Provide details of the Department/Authority which approved the proposal to install the statue along with copy of the approval letter.

2. By which department has statue been installed and what is the cost incurred? Provide information along with copies of bills.

3. Which department issued permission to install the statue of Maharana Pratap? Provide copy of the permission letter.

4. Provide copy of order of Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court of India, if any, regarding installation of statues in public place in Delhi has been received by the department in last 10 years? Etc. The PIO, Transport Dept transferred the RTI application to PIO, DTIDC vide letter dated 08.06.2018. On not receiving any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.09.2018, which was also not adjudicated.

Being aggrieved with non-receipt of any information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones. During the course of the day, Respondent has sent a copy of the reply dated 26.02.2019 alongwith postal receipts indicating that a reply was sent to the appellant on the same date, i.e. on 26.02.2019.

Decision:

It is noted from the above discussion that information as available on record has been duly provided to the appellant vide the letter dated 26.02.2019. Since information to queries 1 to 3, 5 to 6 were not held by the respondent DTIDC, the appellant was informed accordingly. Considering the nature of queries and the respondent's reply of 26.02.2019, accordingly the Commission takes a lenient view. However, the respondent is warned to exercise caution in maintaining timelines in responding to RTI applications in future and strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act.

The instant appeal is disposed off with no further adjudication.

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 2 of 2