Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Vij vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 8 May, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या /Second Appeal Nos. CIC/REVDP/A/2017/155911
CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/170728
Shri Vinod Kumar Vij ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO, EE (M-I), SDMC, Rajouri Garden, Delhi
Through: Sh. Sanjay Dutt - Assistant Accounts
Officer
PIO, SDM(W), Rampura,Delhi ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Through: Sh. Sandeep Sharma - Senior Assistant
SDM(HQ), 5, Sham NathMarg, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 03.05.2019
Date of Decision : 03.05.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases have been
clubbed together for convenience of hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
170728 22.05.2017 15.06.2017 23.06.2017 12.07.2017
155911 16.09.2016 Nil 16.12.2016 Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/REVDP/A/2017/155911 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 16.09.2016 seeking information on eleven points, regarding action taken on complaint dated 30.06.2016 made against the construction being carried on at plot no. 5 road no 32, East Punjabi Bagh and if any notice/warning were issued in this regard, response received from the concerned parties and other related information.
Having received no reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 16.12.2016, which was not adjudicated therefore he filed the Second Appeal.Page 1 of 4
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Respondent alone is present while appellant is not present despite advance service of hearing notice. The respondent claims that neither RTI application nor FAA had been received in their office. Respondent/Executive Magistrate, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi has filed aletter dated 12.04.2019 stating that as per their official records, neither the RTI application nor the First Appeal was available in their Sub-Division.
However, perusal of the file reveals that the RTI application was served on the O/o DC (West), R&L Branch, Old Middle School Building, Rampura, Delhi on 16.09.2016, as is evident from the stamp of the addressee, thereby indicating acknowledgement of service.
Decision:
It appears from the above discussion that the RTI application and First Appeal inexplicably did not reach the actual custodian of information. Since the appellant is not present for hearing, no feedback could be obtained from him. However, the Registry of this Bench is directed to provide a complete set of documents/appeal paper book to the respondent. Respondent-PIO/Executive Magistrate, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - Sh. Rajendra Minz is directed to respond to the queries raised by the appellant through the RTI application, within two weeks from receipt of this order.
CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/170728 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2017, seeking information against seven points regarding one Shri R C Mittal, an Engineering Officer, working in the office of EE(VII)-WZ, seeking inter alia copies of his joining report filed by Sh. Mittal when he joined the office; copies of the office order under which he had been allotted the works he had to perform during his daily working/charge/work charge/area/ward charge etc; copies of work order with details of estimate, measurement of estimates, key plan, sketch plan, cross section taken in the estimate which was supervised by him for the period 01.07.1989 to 15.02.1990 and other related information.
PIO/EE(M-I)/WZ, vide letter dated 15.06.2017 informed the appellant that information could not be provided as the information relates to 1989-1990, which is very old, record relating to about 28 years back.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 23.06.2017. FAA order dated 12.07.2017 directed the PIO to give a modified reply to the appellant within of 10 days.
In compliance of FAO, PIO/A.A.O vide letter dated 01.08.2017, again informed the appellant that information could not be provided as the information was very old. The RTI Application was forwarded to AO(Engg) NDMC/SDMC/HQ to provide a copy of the joining report from personal file of the employee.
Page 2 of 4Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Respondent alone is present and states that information about Sh. R C Mittal, relate to 28 year old records and could not be traced. He further apprised the Commission that the appellant had not even specified the exact designation of Sh. Mittal, whether he was an AE or JE or EE. Information pertaining to service and personal records of employees working as AEs are available with Stores, those pertaining to JEs are available in the Sub Division, while records of the EEs are available with the Division. Despite a search exploring all possibilities, no information about Sh. R C Mittal could be obtained by the respondent.
Appellant is not present for hearing despite advance service of notice of hearing. Hence his views on the subject matter could not be obtained.
Decision:
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the respondent to furnish a revised reply stating the details of efforts undertaken by the respondent to locate the information and the reason, as stated during hearing as to why the desired information could not be traced. This revised reply shall be provided to the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4