Central Information Commission
Mr.Rakesh Goel vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001885/14067
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001885
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Goel,
140. Vivekanand Puri,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi-10007.
Respondent : Mr. K. Kannan
PIO & Executive Engineer (Project)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o The Ex. Engineer (Pr.-II)WZ,
Under Zakhira Flyover, Zakhira
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 09/04/2011
PIO replied : 02/05/2011
First appeal filed on : 18/05/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 01/07/2011
Second Appeal received on : 18/07/2011
Information sought:- The Appellant was asked regarding the workout producers from the Department of MCD about the Complaint.
Sl. The information sought The PIO repled
1 Please inform me the bidders name in tender No. The applicant, being a registered MCD
113840, 113841, 113842, 113843, 113844, 113845, contractor, can access this information on
113846, 113847 and 113848. MCD E-tendering, website vide his login ID. 2 Please inform me the bidders those had downloaded Same as Above in the above said nine tenders.
3 Please inform me the quoted rate of the bidders those Same as Above have been quoted the rates in the above said nine tenders.
4 Reasons for rejection of the bids in tender No. As per CPWD Manual only those tenders are 113840, 113845, 113842, 113843, 113844, 113845, opened which are accompanied by requisite 113846, 113847 and 113848 in respect of amount of Tender Cost and Earnest Money. undersigned i.e. M/s Rakesh Kumar Goel. Whereas I In the instant case the bidder submitted had deposited all the requisite pay orders in respect Tenders cost in a single Demand Draft for all of earnest money and tender cost. However, E.E. the items, but Earnest money only in two (Project-II) WZ has opened my two tender i.e. tender cases was submitted vide two drafts and No. 113841 and 113842. hence other cases were not opened.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appellant has been provided the information but has a grievance.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant and FAA has passed unsatisfactory order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. K. Kannan, PIO & Executive Engineer (Project);
The PIO has provided the information however on query 1, 2 & 3 he has asked the Appellant to obtain the information from the website. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the information as hard copy to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 30 August 2011.
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 12 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA) Page 2 of 2