Central Information Commission
Subodh Kumar vs Public Works Department Delhi on 1 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PWDDL/C/2023/641503
Subodh Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Public Works Department,
12th Floor, MSO Building,
I P Estate, NEW DELHI-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.10.2024
Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.08.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.08.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Give details about who is responsible for repair and maintenance of road between transit flats and Andrews Ganj Extension Govt. colony, as highlighted (in blue) in the attachment.Page 1 of 4
2. When was the Year in which the road existing between transit flats and Andrewsj Ganj Extension Govt. colony, was last constructed/resurfaced.
3. What is the time period after which these types of roads are constructed as per rules.
4. Whether all rules were followed as per point no. 3.
5. Who is the competent authority to address the bad condition of this authority, please provide full address, email, phone no. etc.
6. provide action taken report on the PGPORTAL complaint No.GNCTD/E/2023/0000608.
7. Reasons for not adhering to the TIME-LINE of 30 days to address Public Grievance in the above complaint referred at point no. 7.
8. If rules were flouted to address Public Grievance, action taken report against the erring official.
9. Why zebra crossing has not been demarcated on the Josif Broz Tito Marg red light (which is solely installed for pedestrian crossing) near Kendriya Vidyalaya flyover, the same can cause fatal accident for crossing school children, including mine.
Further, as per proviso to section 7(1) the above information may be provided within 48 hours of the receipt of the request since information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person/persons."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.Page 2 of 4
Respondent: Shri Abdul Mannan Khan, Assistant Engineer (P) & APIO, M-411, South Road, present in person.
The Respondent, during the hearing, produced before the Commission a copy of reply dated 11.09.2023 which is stated to be the reply of the present RTI application.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that Shri Nipun Gupta, Superintending Engineer is the Nodal CPIO.
Decision From the perusal of the records, it has come to the attention of the Commission that the response given by the CPIO vide letter dated 11.09.2023 is not related to the information sought in the above-mentioned RTI application. Therefore, the same was returned to the Respondent and has not been taken on record. It seems that the office of the Respondent Public Authority has no seriousness in dealing with the RTI applications of the applicants, as this approach tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission by not coming prepared for the hearing, as it violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the information sought by the Complainant is not related to their division.
In view of the above, inaction on the part of the Nodal CPIO is prima facie established as it seems that the said RTI application was not properly forwarded to the concerned CPIO and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to Shri Nipun Gupta, Superintending Engineer & Nodal CPIO of Respondent Public Authority as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, to the Nodal CPIO for obstructing the information with mala fide intention qua the instant RTI Application, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.Page 3 of 4
The Commission further observes that the information sought by the Complainant is in larger public interest, therefore, the Respondent is advised to give reply/information to the Complainant as per his above-mentioned RTI application, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Respondent is directed to serve a copy of this order to the Nodal CPIO for its compliance.
The Complaint is disposed of 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 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)