Central Information Commission
Mr. Satinder Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000586/3288
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000586
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Satinder Kumar,
A-14, East Baldev Park,
Delhi-110051
Respondents 1. : PIO/Suptd Engr.-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Zonal Building, Karkar Dooma, Delhi-110032 Respondents 2. : Deputy Commissioner (Shah-South) Zonal Building, IInd Floor, Karkar Dooma, Delhi-110032 RTI application filed on : 12/12/2008 PIO : No Reply First Appeal filed on : 19/01/2009 First Appellate Authority order : --------------
Second Appeal received on : 26/03/2009 Detail of required information:-
The appellant had requested in the RTI application information pertaining to the work order No. E.E-XXX/2004-05/38 dated 5/11/2004 which dealt with the improvement of drain and road by Pdg. CC pavement from H. No. E-12 to E-164 in Samas Pur Road, Pandav Nagar in AC 38/69 Sh S. Zone. The work order was issued to M/s Shiva Builders and the queries pertaining to this were:
1. Whether the work orders is issued by EE-XXX.
2. Whether the aforementioned work has been issued by contractors.
3. Whether the bill was prepared to for the above work.
4. Provision of a copy of the work recorded in the measurement book if it exists.
5. On the event of non-existence of record, provision of reason for not preparing and releasing of bill.
6. The time required by the department for preparing and releasing the bill.
7. The time required to release the payment.
.
PIO replied.
The PIO had given no information to the RTI filed by the appellant.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
No hearing was called by the FAA.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Satinder Kumar Respondent: Mr. Ranvir Singh PIO No information was provided to the appellant by the PIO. The First appellate authority Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui is also guilty of dereliction of duty by not issuing any order on the First appeal. The PIO claims he has sent a reply on 9/2/2009 , whereas the appellant claims he has only received this with a covering letter of 17/3/2009. The PIO claims the information had been sent on 10/2/2009. The PIO will produce the dispatch register at the Commission on 18 May 2009 at 5.00pm and show this to the Commission. A perusal of the reply sent to the appellant shows it is completely inadequate and basically asks the appellant to inspect the files at the authorities' office. The PIO is instructed to bring the files to the Commission on 18 May 2009 at 5.00pm and allow the appellant to inspect them.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The inspection of the files will be done at the Commission on 18 May 2009, and photocopies of required documents will be provided to the appellant. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) . A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 June 2009 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15th May 2009 (In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)