Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Amit Gupta vs Gnctd on 24 December, 2025

                                के ीय सू चना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/120440


Amit Gupta                                            .....अपीलकता/Appellant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
Public Information Officer under RTI
O/o the Executive
Engineer PWD Civil Road,
Maintenance Division, West
(Road)-I, NCTD, R.R. Lines,
Ring Road, New Delhi-110010                           .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    16.12.2025
Date of Decision                    :    22.12.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    17.03.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    31.05.2024
First appeal filed on               :    14.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    24.06.2024




CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/120440                                               Page 1 of 5
 Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

"Name of work: A/R and M/O various roads under Division West Road-

1.SH Day to Day maintenance of all roads and painting of Kerb Stones, Railing, Road marking painting, Installation of Diesel Pumps and removal of Malba under Sub Division WR-12, New Delhi dg. 2023- 24][21/EE/PWD/WR-1/2023-24 Tender ID: 2023_PWD_243784_1 With reference to the above cited subject and name of work, it is submitted that your department floated the various tenders out of which the above-mentioned tender is awarded to Ashok Builders. The estimated cost put to tender is Rs.8048462/- and contractual amount is Rs.2495828/- @ 68.99% below of the estimated cost. First intention after seeing the rates quoted by the agency is whether the work has been executed or not? There is no rocket science that the work can be executed on these quoted rates without compromising with quality and quantity of the work. That the information revealed by the various sources that there is a huge kind of irregularities and negligence is made during the execution of work to gain the undue benefit with the connivance of public servants. This negligence and irregularities may be the cause of corrupt practices.

As the State Exchequer of Delhi is also involved as hard earned money of Delhi people in the above-mentioned work which have been/is being executed under the supervision of Public Works Department, Govt. of Delhi. Despite that a lot of irregularities is being done by the agency with connivance of concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, Applicant is therefore filing this RTI application to obtain some documents to check the actual quality and quantity of the above- mentioned work in the interest of public.

Now, kindly provide following documents in respect of the work above mentioned and fulfil their obligation u/s (7) of Right to Information Act 2005 within the specified period of 30 Days.

1. Kindly provide the attested/true copies of abstract of cost of Running and Final Bill.

2. What is the completion cost of the work? If completed.

3. Kindly provide the attested/true copies of Tax Invoices of material in accordance of NIT, procured such as Paint Materials, Road Marking Materials, TMT Bar, Bitumen Invoices (to be procured directly from refinery), Cement Tax Invoices, RMC of approved vendor, and other construction material etc. for execution of the work.

4. Kindly provide the certified copies of MAS Register, duly prepared by the department.

5. Kindly provide the name of the Executive Engineer who finalised the bill of the agency. If any"

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.05.2024 stating as under:

"उपरो त संदभ म मांगी गयी सूचना अ यंत व तत ृ है अतः आपसे अनुरोध है क आप प ाि त के बाद से 15 दन म कसी भी काय दवस पर इस कायालय के दरू भाष न0 011-25695129 पर स पक कर पूव Appointment लेकर 02:00 (अपराहन) के बाद कायालय आकर उपल ध रकाड का अवलोकन कर सकते है । उपल ध रकाड म मांग के अनु प द तावेज क त ल प आर.ट .आई. के नयमानुसार ा त कर सकते ह।"

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2024. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Nirdosh Kumar, Assistant Engineer/APIO, appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.06.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated the reply furnished by the CPIO. He submitted that the Appellant was duly offered an opportunity to inspect the relevant records, which was not availed by him. He further stated that no information was denied and that the reply was given strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant sought various documents relating to a road maintenance work executed under PWD West Road-I Division for the year 2023-24, including abstract of cost of running/final bills, completion cost, tax invoices of construction material, MAS register, and details of the officer who finalized the bill. The CPIO, vide reply dated 31.05.2024, informed the Appellant that the information sought was voluminous in nature and offered inspection of records on any working day after prior appointment, with liberty to obtain copies of documents as per the RTI Rules.

8. The Commission is of the view that the information sought by the Appellant was voluminous and the CPIO had appropriately invoked the option of inspection of records, which is a permissible mode of disclosure under the CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/120440 Page 4 of 5 RTI Act. The Commission further notes that the Appellant neither availed the opportunity of inspection nor appeared before the Commission to substantiate his grievances. In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the Respondent and no further intervention is warranted in the matter.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, O/o the Executive Engineer PWD Civil Road, Maintenance Dn. West (Road)-I, NCTD R R Lines, Ring Road New Delhi-110010 CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/120440 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)