Central Information Commission
Girish Nautiyal vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation City ... on 3 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/115353
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/124945
CIC/DEPIN/A/2018/146837
CIC/DEPIN/A/2019/102215
CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/102583
Shri Girish Nautiyal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1.PIO/E.E.-(M-I)/Narela Zone,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
2. PIO/E.E.-(M-II)/Narela Zone,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through: Sh. C R Kangra - AE
3. PIO/O/o. the Director of Local Bodies
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Sh. Anil Ghildiyal - Dy. Director
4. PIO/Dy. Secretary(UC),
Department of Urban Development
Through: Sh. Anil Kumar - Dy. Secretary
5. PIO/O/o. the Commissioner of Industries,
Department of Industries (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Sh. B Ramesh -PIO/SO
6. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/Narela Zone, NDMC
7. PIO/Dy. Health Officer/Narela Zone, NDMC
Through: Dr. O P Gehlot - DHO, Sh. Balraj -PIO
and Sh. K K Lohat
8. PIO/Sanitation Suptdg.,/Narela Zone, NDMC
Through:
Page 1 of 8
Date of Hearing : 15.11.2019
Date of Decision : 02.12.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
115353 11.09.2017 13.10.2017 30.10.2017 05.01.2018
124945 26.12.2017 15.01.2018 30.01.2018 28.02.2018
146837 10.01.2018 -- 21.02.2018 --
102215 20.08.2018 -- 15.11.2018 --
102583 07.09.2018 -- 26.11.2018 08.01.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/115353 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 11.09.2017 seeking information on three points:-
1. (a)How much money have been spent by MCD in Krishan Vihar, Delhi in the name of installation of security gates (in different locations), cleaning of roads and drainage etc., during the past 5 years. Provide the year-wise expenditure with head-wise incurred by MCD.
(b) Intimate about the transparency that has been followed by MCD while carrying out the aforesaid work.
(c) Inform about the standard of procedure (SOP) which is being followed by MCD personnel to carry out sanitation work and drainage cleaning work in Krishan Vihar Area. A copy of SOP, if any be provided to understand the transparent mechanism of MCD. Etc. PIO/E.E-Narela Zone vide letter dated 13.10.2017 provided information on point no. 1 and on point no. 2 and stated that it does not pertain to their branch. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.10.2017. FAA vide order dated 05.01.2018 held as follows:-
"....PIO is directed to give the consolidated reply of your division to A.C. (Narela) where the PIO has been registered within 10 days. A. C.(Narela)/Ist Appellate will give the consolidated reply to the applicant. The case is closed".
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Page 2 of 8Both parties are present during hearing. Respondent is represented by the AE(M)- Sh. C R Kangra who is not prepared with the facts of the case adequately enough to assist the Bench, except the fact that the queries sought by the appellant can be answered by the office of the AC-Narela Zone.
Decision In the light of the foregoing facts of the case, the Commission directs that a copy of this order be sent to Sh. Balraj Singh - Asstt. Commissioner, Narela Zone to furnish complete information against the queries raised by the appellant in the RTI Application dated 11.09.2017, within three weeks from the receipt of this order. A compliance report shall be submitted by the O/o AC Narela Zone, before the Commission by 30.12.2019, failing which appropriate penal action shall be initiated for non-compliance, as per law.
The Commission takes an adverse view of the fact that EE(M)-II, Sh. A K Singh neither transferred the RTI application to the appropriate custodian of information viz. the AC-Narela Zone nor did he appear during hearing to explain the cause of lapse on his part. Accordingly, the PIO/EE(M)-II, Sh. A K Singh is hereby directed to submit an explanation justifying the violation of provisions of the RTI Act by non transfer of the RTI application and vitiating the proceedings by failing to attend the hearing. The explanation must reach the Commission by 20.12.2019, failing which appropriate proceedings shall ensue as per law.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/124945 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 26.12.2017 seeking information on three points, as follows:-
1. Recently, Urban Development Deptt. (UDD) Govt. of Delhi issued notification No F1/44/ADLB2017/CD000436606/5884-99 dated 21.08.2017 through which, limits/areas of Corporation have been ramified. In this regard, provide the following:-
a. Before issuing notification, if UDD had issued any public notice in any of the National Daily Newspapers for inviting public objections/opinion to avoid adverse impact of the notification. Copy of public notice if any, published in newspapers w.r.t. Corporation's area limitations may kindly be provided.
b. Whether any expert committee has been formed by. UDD for assessing the feasibility of demarcated areas, if so name of the committee members along with feasibility report be provided.
c. During the past 5 years, if UDD has any achievement on its parts towards public welfare activity(ies)? In case of yes, details of the same may kindly be given.Page 3 of 8
2. By issuing aforesaid notification, thousands of residents (of some of the areas have been forced to live hellish life particularly at the time of availing services of MCD Narela Zone which is about 25 Kms away from Rohini MCD Zone, In this regard, provide the remedial measures through which general public of notify areas get immediate relief from the adverse impact of the aforesaid notification?
3. For the past 5 years how many notifications on the part of Urban Development Deptt. have been issued by following the due process of forming expert committee. Year-wise of notifications be given.
PIO/DD(Local Bodies) vide letter dated 15.01.2018 provided information to the Appellant informing him that copy of noting of a proposal of corporation as well as Urban Development Dept can be provided on payment of fees.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.01.2018. FAA vide order dated 28.02.2018 advised PIO to give point wise reply within 10 working days.
In compliance with FAO, a reply was given by PIO/DD(Local Bodies) vide letter dated 14.03.2018 furnished point-wise reply to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing. Appellant states that despite specific directions of FAA, no information has been provided to him so far.
Respondent has produced certain documents during the course of hearing claiming that the same was provided to the Appellant in response of the RTI queries. But Appellant is clearly not satisfied with the information. At this, the Respondent stated that the Appellant is welcome to inspect the records available.
Decision:
The prime contention of the Appellant appears to be the alleged adverse impact of an administrative decision of jurisdictional change of the area of Krishan Vihar transferred to Narela Zone from Rohini Zone. The Appellant claims that this change has caused immense hardship to the residents of the area and ironically the transfer was carried out without seeking public opinion. The Respondent has pointed out that such decisions are generally taken by the MCD. Under the circumstances, the queries need to be refocused since the queries as such are too convoluted to address the issue.
The Respondent from the Urban Development Dept of GNCTD- Shri Anil Kumar and Sh. Anil Ghildiyal - Dy. Director, Local Bodies shall furnish a revised reply Page 4 of 8 supplying all the information available on records, regarding the transfer of the area of Krishan Vihar to Narela Zone from Rohini Zone. The Respondent shall also mention in the revised reply, the relevant competent authority who can redress the issue of the transfer of the area, which has been troubling the residents of the locality. The revised reply should be sent to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report shall be submitted before the Commission by 27.12.2019, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law.
CIC/DEPIN/A/2018/146837 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 10.01.2018 seeking information on five points regarding a circular No. FC.1/DCl/2015/4155 to 4164 dated 8thDec. 2015 issued by Dy. Commissioner, DSIIDC to various Departments of Delhi Govt for obtaining manpower on, contractual basis. In this regard, he sought following information:-
a. So far how many departments have been complied the aforesaid circular and obtained contractual manpower in their respective Deptt.? Department wise details of contractual manpower may kindly be provided.
b. Please intimate if fool proof transparency mechanism is being adopted/followed by ICSIL and respective department of Delhi Govt. so as to competent job seekers don't feel cheated/discouraged. Please also intimate, if any fee is charged from the job seekers by ICSIL.
c. During the past 3 years, how much money has been spent by various Govt. Departments for obtaining contractual manpower through ICSIL or other sources. Year wise details vis-a-vis contractual manpower be provided.
d. Despite issuance of aforesaid order, if still any of the Govt. Departments of Delhi Govt. is facing manpower crunch including Health Deptt. due to which department's day to day work is getting hampered. Please specify in details.
2. Before awarding manpower supply contract to ICSIL, if other bidders were invited to participate in the manpower supply bid. Description of other bidders may kindly be given.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant, he approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DEPIN/A/2019/102215 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 20.08.2018 seeking information on seven points about his complaint dated 25.01.2018- Page 5 of 8
1. Please inform about the parameters through which DSIIDC randomly came into conclusion that pollutant factories have been running in a very few bon-conforming areas of Delhi.
2. Upto which period DSIIDC is sure to have only 51,837 pollutant factories in listed non-confirming areas.
3. Please intimate if DSIIDC had done survey work o its own sources or through out-source Agency to gather data of factories (pollutant). Time and Money consumed for this purpose may also be intimated. 4. Since large parts of Outer Delhi is known to have thousands of pollutant factories running in non-conforming areas, despite that areas did not find place in DSIIDC list (pollutant) In this regard could you please specify the reasons for non-including the Outer Delhi in your list?
5. Please intimate, as on date, how many Industrial units, have been operating in different parts of Delhi. Area wise details may kindly be provided.
6. Inform, if DSIIDC and MCDs have any co-ordination committee to pinpoint the problematic areas of the city and solution thereof. If so, brief facts of the same may be provided.
7. Intimate if DSIIDC is having sufficient technical manpower to carry out any project smoothly. On the basis of hierarchy, kindly list out the same by excluding deputationist personnel.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant, he approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and since the above appeals are between the same parties, hence they are adjudicated together. The Respondent is represented by Sh. B Ramesh - Section officer, claiming to be the PIO from O/o Commissioner of Industries, who has submitted a written statement which indicates that both the RTI applications had been duly transferred to the PIOs of the concerned department viz. PIO, ICSIL (vide letter dated 16.01.2018) and PIO, DSIIDC (vide letter dated 27.08.2018 and 04.09.2018). It is also contended by the respondent public authority that the First Appeal was also duly adjudicated by the FAA and order dated 11.12.2018 was passed.
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case, it is evident that though the respondent claims to have furnished information and on this ground alone, the FAA had not passed any other direction, the Appellant is not satisfied with the response/s provided so far by the respondents. Since the aspect about transfer of the RTI Page 6 of 8 application had not been known prior to the receipt of submission from the respondent during the course of hearing, hence the actual custodians of information had not been put to notice.
Registry of this Bench is hereby directed to send notice/s to i) PIO, ICSIL and ii) PIO, DSIIDC and obtain their feedback as to what action had been taken by the respective offices and when and what information had been provided by these offices to the appellant. In the event that no information has been so far provided by both ICSIL and DSIIDC, complete information against the queries of the appellant shall be provided within three weeks of receipt of this order, marking a copy of the compliance report before the Commission by 27.12.2019. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/102583 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 07.09.2018 seeking information on five points-
1. Inform if NDMC, Narela Zone has any uniform communication channel meant for the public so as to aggrieved person(s) could approach it to find solution to their grievances in time bond manner. In case of yes, details of lodged grievances/complaints and resolved thereof for the past one year be provided.
2. List out the name of officials (Narela Zone) alongwith their Mobile Nos. to whom people may find easy to contact at the time exigency.
3. If NDMC, Narela has any contingency fund to meet the exigency in its jurisdictional areas. So far, upto which extent it has utilized it in the interest of public? Details of the same may be provided.
4. What kind of efforts have been made or being made to stop Malaria and Dengue menace in and around Krishna Vihar area by NDMC, Narela Zone? Details of the same may be given along with manpower involved with this task.
5. Intimate about the status of a grievance letter sent to D.C. Office, NDMC, Narela Zone dated 08.08.2018.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 26.11.2018. FAA vide order dated 08.01.2019 stated as follows:-
"AC/NZ is directed to forward a copy of the said RTI application to all concerned and also furnish reply to the appellant within 07 working days positively. Further all concerned PIOs are directed to reply the queries of the RTI application specifically".
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO, he approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 7 of 8Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Respondent has submitted some documents during the course of hearing stating vide letter dated 22.02.2019 claiming to provide information to the Appellant, which the Appellant denies receipt of. Copy of the same has now been provided to the Appellant during the course of hearing.
The DHO present for hearing states that response had been provided on 11.10.2018 in response to query number 4, including beat-wise manpower deployed for prevention of malaria and dengue.
Decision Facts of the case which have emerged during the hearing, reveal that most of the information has been provided only now during the course of hearing, in response to the FAA's order dated 08.01.2019. Considering that information as available on record has now been supplied to the appellant, there remains no further cause of action to be adjudicated in this case.
The above appeals are thus disposed off with the respective observations.
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 8 of 8