Central Information Commission
Mr.C P Wig vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002160/9374
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002160
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. C.P.Wig
Advocate
21/11, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena
PIO & Suptdg. Engineer - II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Suptdg. Eng.-II, West Zone,
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 03/03/2010
PIO replied : 25/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 05/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 06/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 28/07/2010
Information sought:
How much amount was ear-marked by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for the development of the parks, lanes and roads in Tilak Nagar area for the last three years and how much amount was ear-marked in respect of Block No.21, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and how much amount was spent for the last three years over the development, improvement of the parks, roads and lanes and open spaces in Block No.21, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
Reply of PIO:
"It is informed that no separate funds were ear-marked for the development of the parks, lanes and roads in Tilak Nagar area.
It is further informed that no separate records were maintained by this office in respect of the expenditure incurred on the development, improvement of the parks roads and lanes and open spaces in Block No. 21, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. It is further informed that in case the applicant desired this information, he is requested to kindly appear in this office on any working day between 10.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. for verification/identification of records so that the copies of the same be delivered to him after payment of necessary photocopying charges as per the provisions of the R.T.I. Act, 2005."
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The PIO mentioned that since the information is not written in the format which is required by the Appellant, the Appellant may visit the office of the Ex.En.(M)-III at the mutually agreeable date and time for obtaining the information sought by him.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the FAA's order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & Suptdg. Engineer-II; Mr. P. C. Meena, EE;
The appellant had sought information about expenditure incurred by MCD in Block-21, Tilak Nagar. The PIO has stated that there is no specific year marking of the expenditure incurred for this area. Hence the PIO had offered that the appellant could inspect the records and extract the information of the expenditure for Block-21, Tilak Nagar. The appellant has not taken up the inspection. Section-7(9) of the RTI Act states that if proving the information in a format sought by the appellant would require disproportionate resources of the public authority the PIO can offer the information in another format. The PIO has offered to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
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 cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK)