Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 17 October, 2011

                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                  Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000304/14818Adjunct
                                                              Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000304

Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:

Complainant                         :      Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
                                           1775 Kucha Lattushah,
                                           Dariba, Chandni Chowk,
                                           Delhi-110006.

Respondent                          :      Public Information Officer &

Additional Municipal Health Officer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o Additional Municipal Health Officer 19th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Raod, JLN Marg, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 26/02/2011 PIO replied : No reply Complaint received on : 05/04/2011 Information Sought

1. Is it true that new numbering has been done to add little space as pyres around two Arya Samajist pyres on platform with the said Arya-Samajist pyres at Nigambodh Ghat cremation-ground in Delhi after petition no. CIC/SG/C/2010/001167 when the so-termed 'semi-VIP' status of three pyres was abolished by removing the grill around a pyre-platform after stringent CIC-strictures?

2. If yes, no. of pyres on open space on the platform as in query (1) above, added as pyres mentioning also pyre nos. of newly added space as pyres.

3. Copies of file-notings/correspondence/documents etc. on adding open space as pyres as in query (1) above, especially when usually sufficient no. of already existed pyres used to be available for cremation.

4. Name of authority ordering little space as pyres around two Arya-Samajist pyres on platform with the said Arya-Samajist pyres at Nigambodh Ghat cremation ground.

5. Are authorities aware of serious problems created/likely to be created in case some dead bodies are brought to be cremated in Arya-Samajist with burning pyres in little space around Arya-Samajist pyres after this little space numbered new as pyres?

6. Steps taken to revert back to earlier system by not misusing little space around Arya-Samajist pyres as pyres.

7. Is it true that cremation on the open space now added as pyres as in query (1) above, is allowed only through approaches/influences/special requests etc.

8. If yes, persons/bodies/institutions etc. entitled to recommend cremation on newly designated pyres in little open space around Arya-Samajist pyres?

9. Is it true that allowing cremation on little open space around Arya-Samajist pyres now designated as pyres is a sort of replacement of 'semi-VIP' cremation removed as outcome of petition no.

CIC/SG/C/2010/001167?

10. Criterion followed in allotting newly designated pyres as in query (1) above for cremation.

11. Criterion followed in allotting the only raised VIP platform at Nigambodh Ghat cremation ground for cremation.

12. Is it true that money is charged in the name of flower-decoration around pyres now designated new as in query (1) above?

13. If yes, amount charged in the name of flower-decoration for allowing cremation on little open space around Arya-Samajist pyres noe designated as pyres in the name of lower-decoration, a bitter fact which practically exists.

14. Total number of pyres available at Nigambodh Ghat cremation ground exceeded number of pyres there.

15. Occasions, if any, in last one year when number of cremations at Nigambodh Ghat cremation ground exceeded no. of pyres there.

16. Action taken on my Grievance no. PRSEC/E/2011/03014 (copy enclosed) registered at website of President of India.

17. Criterion followed in allotting pyre no. for cremation.

18. Are pyre nos. allotted in serial of availability?

19. Is any record of allotting pyre nos. maintained?

20. If yes, please provide details.

21. Any other related information.

22. File notings on movement of this RTI petition.

Reply from PIO:-

No reply.

Ground of the Complaint:

The required information has not been provided by the PIO to the Complainant within 30 days.

Relevant Facts Emerging during the hearing held on 23/09/2011: The following were present:

Complainant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;

Respondent: Absent;

"The Complainant states that no information has been provided to him. Thus it appears that this is a case of denial of information without any reasons."

Decision dated 23/09/2011:

The Appeal was allowed.

"The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 10 October 2011.

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 appears 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 17 October 2011 at 12.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons."

Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 17/10/2011: Complainant: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal;

Respondent: Dr. M. K. Pal, Dy. MHO & PIO;

The PIO has given certain information stating that no new numbering has been done on the pyres. The Appellant points out that Arya Samaj Lodhi Road which is operating the facility has stated that numbering of the pyres has been done. The PIO states that Arya Samaj Lodhi Road is not authorized to make any changes without informing to MCD and since they had not been given any information, he had provided the information that no numbering has been done based on his records.

The PIO claims that he had sent the information to the Appellant by speed post on 23/04/2011. The Appellant claims that this was in response to another RTI application. The Commission however notes that the queries replied to by the PIO are identical to the queries in the earlier RTI application. In view of this the penalty proceedings are dropped.

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 17 October 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision mention the complete decision number) (NB) Page 3 of 3