Central Information Commission
Drrakeshchadha vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 18 March, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F. No. CIC/DS/A/2013/901576-YA
Date of hearing : 18.03.2014
Date of decision : 18.03.2014
Appellant : Dr. R.K. Chadha,
Ashok Vihar (Delhi)
Respondent : Shri S.C. Gupta, PIO,
Shri K.K. Burman
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Delhi.
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant fact emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.05.2013
First appeal filed on : No reply
First appeal filed on : 01.07.2013
First Appellate Authority order : No order passed
Second Appeal received on : 26.08.2013
Information sought:
The appellant sought information relating to mandatory conditions to be fulfilled for TA/DA to be admissible.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
In pursuance with the Commission's order dated 20.01.2014 in Rakesh Chadha Vs. MCD, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2014 u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 was issued by the Commission to the CPIO, MCD for delay in responding to the RTI application filed by the appellant dated 13.05.2013. Both the parties are present during the show-cause hearing. The appellant stated that there was a purposeful delay in his case. The respondent stated that there was no malafide involved and that the dealing assistant was busy because of a serious illness in his family and hence, the delay. The respondent also tendered an unconditional apology for the same and assured that such a mistake will not be repeated in future. With regard to the information, the respondent stated that information on point 1 has already been provided and for point 2, he stated that there were 3 RTI applications filed by the same appellant on similar points and that information on the same have also been provided. The respondent also mentioned that various opportunities have been given to the appellant for inspection of files while dealing with other RTI applications, but he neither turns up nor intimates in the same regard. Written submissions have been filed by the respondents in this regard.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant has been provided to him by the respondents. The appellant had filed an RTI application on 13.05.2013 and information was provided to him on 27.11.2013 by the CPIO, thus it is true that there is a delay of around 165 days. However, keeping in mind the submissions of the respondent and his assurance that such a mistake will not be repeated in future, the delay is, therefore, condoned.
The penalty proceedings u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act against CPIO, MCD are hereby, dropped and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.V.Mathew) Deputy Registrar