Central Information Commission
Mr. G R Upadhaya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 11 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000553/18344
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000553
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. G.R.Upadhaya,
General Secretary, RWA,
C-56, 1st Floor, Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi-110024.
Respondent : Dr. Alok Singh
PIO & Dy. Director (Horticulture) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Horticulture Department Shiv Mandir Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024.
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2011 PIO replied : 07/12/2011 First appeal filed on : 21/12/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 20/01/2012 Second Appeal received on : 15/02/2012
A complaint of illegal heavy pruning of trees and heaps of branches and bushes lying on the footpath of Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School no.1, East of Kailash, New Delhi, Opposite H. No. D-143, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065 was sent vide speed post: ED52864990IN on 29/09/2011 to Dy.Dir. (Hort.)/MCD/CNZ.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. The date on which the above heaps of tree branches were The information sought is not present in cleared from the footpaths of Govt. Girls Senior material form in this office. Secondary School No.1, East of Kailash.
2. The reason for which the above heaps of branches could The information sought is not present in not be cleared from the above footpaths till today. material form in this office.
3. A letter no. F/DCF(S)/T.CELL/11/12/1377-78 dated The information sought is not present in 19/07/2011 was issued to your office from the Office of material form in this office. However, it Dy. Conservator of Forest (South Division), Tuglaqkabad, is to inform that after receipt of the letter New Delhi-110044. What steps were taken by your office from DCF(S), the tree was inspected and to save the termite ridden trees in the Municipal Park in it was found that it has already been front of C-56, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New dried. Delhi-110024?
4. Name, designation and mobile of the officer who was The information sought is not present in assigned the job of saving the above two (2) trees in the material form in this office. Municipal Park.
5. Elaborate the treatment provided to above two (2) trees As per (3),above, no such treatment was infected with termite (date of treatment, the pesticide used given to dried trees. along with copy of Purchase bill of Insecticide).
6. Present state of health of above referred two (2) termite The information sought is not present in infected trees. material form in this office.
Page 1 of 27. The name and designation of the officer to be held The information sought is not present in responsible for carelessness amounting to unnatural death material form in this office. of green and healthy trees Opp. H. no.C-56, DNC, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.
8. Detail of any Vigilance Inquiry initiated (or pending) The information sought is not present in against your present subordinate officials for dereliction of material form in this office. duties or otherwise.
9. Details of compounding fee paid under Delhi Preservation The information sought is not present in of Trees Act, 1994 paid by the Department of Horticulture, material form in this office. MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024 during the year 2005; 2006; 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010 & 2011.
10 Copy of annual property return filed by Dr. Alok Singh, The information sought is not present in . Dy. Director (Hort.) for the financial year 2008; 2009; material form in this office.
2010 & 2011.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal was disposed of by stating that as the PIO had already provided the information available with the department to the appellant, no further information is available in the present application.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Parveen Narang representing Mr. G.R.Upadhaya; Respondent: Dr. Alok Singh, PIO & Dy. Director (Horticulture);
As regards query 8, 9 & 10 the PIO is directed to give a categorical reply to these points as discussed with the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the categorical reply on queries 8, 9 & 10 to the Appellant before 25 April 2012.
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
11 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 2 of 2