Central Information Commission
Mr.Vikul Bhardwaj vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 13 December, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002620/16290
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002620
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vikul Bhardwaj
D-36, MCD Colony,
Azad Pur, Delhi - 110033.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Land & Estate Department Dr. SPM Civic Center, Minto Road, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 00/00/2011 PIO replied : 06/04/2011 First appeal filed on : 06/05/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 07/06/2011 Second Appeal received on : 17/09/2011 S.no. Information sought PIO response
1. In how many case(s) full or partial recovery As per allotment rules only those cases are of SIF and Damage Charges is pending on considered/examined for regularization o regularization of government accommodation government accommodation to - the. Family to the family member(s) of retired/died members of retired/died officials where the officials ofMCD? Provide case wise details? outstanding dues against the premises allotted.
To the deceased/retired employees clear.
2. What action has taken against the defaulter to This is the department's usual practice and recover the outstanding SLF/Damage Charge? action is taken as per. allotment rules time to time.
3. In how many case(s) MCD has approached Nil the Hon'ble Court for recovery of due pending SLF/Damage Charges?
4. In how many cases MCD had approached the As per record in only one case the department Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme had approached tile Hon'ble High Court as well Court against the decision of Central as Hon'ble Supreme Court. Smt. DolLyl Administrative Tribunal, Delhi/District Court, Kaushik Vs.-MCD. Delhi in regards to regularization/allotment of MCD accommodations? Provide case wise details?
5. What were the decision(s) of Hon'ble Hon'ble Court- has desired to regularize the Supreme Court of India in regards to the premises in favour Smt. Dolly Kaushik Appeal against the decisions of CAT/Distt Telephone Operator. Court in regards to regularization/allotment of Government accommodation? Whether they Page 1 of 3 were in favour of MCD or against MCD?
6. How much money (Total Amount) was spend Pertains to CLO Office.
on litigation/fees to Hon'ble court(s)/fees to Advocates in each such case(s)? Provide the breakup of each such case in each court?
7. In how many case(s) MCD had reimburse the Pertains to CLO Office.
amount spend by MCD employee(s) for paying fees to advocate/Hon'ble court(s) where the Hon'ble court had given decisions in favour of employee or against the MCD ?
How much amount was reimbursed? Provide the case wise details?
8. Whether the amount paid by Suit Dolly Pertains to CLO Office.
Kaushik w/o Vikul Bhardwaj as fees to advocate for legal assistance/court fees is reimburse paid or reimbursable/payable to Smt Dolly Kaushik w/o Vikul Bhardwaj working as Telephone Operator, in the matter of regularization/allotment of government accommodation D-36, MCD colony, azadpur, Delhi-33? Whether the amount spend by Smt. Dolly Kaushik is MCD employee(s) without full recovery of outstanding of SLF/Damage Charge(s) where the original allottee had retired died before after the joining of such employee(s) in MCD?
9. Are there any case(s) where the government retired/deceased employee as per allotment rules accommodation have been allotted/ with the condition to clearance of he dues regularized to MCD employee(s) without Full pertaining to the said ......... recovery of outstanding of SLF/Damage Charge(s) where the original allottee had retired/died before/after the joining of such employee(s) in MCD?
10. In how many cases(s) MCD has recovered the In all such ......................................
full outstanding SLY/Damage Charge before For regularization of ............ regularization.
regularization of Government
accommodation? Kindly supply the
calculation sheet(s) in each case?
11. Whether MCD has regularized/allotted No. However, in the case of D36, Azad Pur
residential accommodation to any MCD MCD Colony Which was regularized in tie name
employee without full recovery of of Smt. Dolly Kaushik/Telephone Operator by
SLF/Damage Charge ?lf yes, provide the the direction of Hon'ble Court.
details and why it is not regularize before full payment of due SIF/Damage in case of regularization of govt. accommodation 0-36, MCD colony, azadpur, Delhi to Smt. Dolly Kaushik, Telephone operator? Who is responsible for this and action you have taken against the official?
Page 2 of 3Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Question 1-2. The appellant has not provided any time frame in his RTI application dated 16- 3.2011 received from Asstt.Cm.(PIO)/City Zone. Hence, the appellant is requested to kindly provide the specific time frame which he has sought the information.
Question 3-6. The Department has given the information. Question 7 to 8. The PIO/L&E is directed to submit this information petunia to this Department only.
Question 10.- The appellant has not provided any time frame in his RTI application dated 16.3.2011 received from Asstt. Cm.(PlO)/City Zone. Question 11.- The PIO/L&E is directed to examine the Court Order and reply to the appellant point wise accordingly within 30 days from the issue of this letter.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply and Order of FAA received by the Appellant. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that complete information has not been provided by the PIO. The PIO and the First Appellate Authority had stated that the Appellant had not provided period for which the information is being sought. After perusal of the RTI application the Commission notes that the Appellant had mentioned at point 3(ii) that he is seeking information for the period 01/01/2001 to 15/02/2011. However, the Commission feels that it may be difficult for the public authority to provide all the information sought by the Appellant for the period of 10 years. In view of this the Commission suggests that the Appellant may inspect the relevant records at the office of the PIO on 03 January 2012 from 11.00AM onwards at the office of the PIO.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 03 January 2012 from 11.00AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 03 January 2012 from 11.00AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.
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 13 December 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU) Page 3 of 3