Central Information Commission
Hira Lal vs Mcd on 25 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/C/2024/108975/A
Hira Lal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
New Delhi Municipal
Council, Estate-I
Department, Palika Kendra,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2025
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.10.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 25.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.02.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 19.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Kindly, provide the information with regard to 'Leasing of NDMC' property to Public Sector and Private Sector [i.e. Leasing to Government and Non-Government institutions ].Page 1 of 4
2. Whether, it is single rate [License fee+Maintainance Charges+Taxes etc] for Public Sector and Private Sector institutions or otherwise.
3. The percentage rate of Annual increment of License Fee. Whether rate of Annual increment is same or differential for Public Sector and Private Sector institutions.
4. The details of property; Area [in Sqft] leased and vacant.
5. Additionally, the information may be tabulated in given format month/year wise.
(i) Property Details
(ii) License Fee
(iii) Maintenance Charges
(iv) Surcharge GST+Other Tax (specify)
(v) Rebate
(vi) Late payment Charges
(vii) Interest on delayed payment
(viii) Total Rent Received
6. The information as sought at point No. 1 to 5 may be furnished month wise / year wise for the period of 2019-20 to 2023-24."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.02.2024, held as under:
"An Appeal was filed by the appellant in respect of non-receipt of the information from the Ρ.Ι.Ο. (Ε-Ι) as asked for under RTI Application vide No. NDMC/OR/2023/60578 dt. 10.10.2023.
The appellant in his RTI application dated 29.12.2023 has requested to provide the information regarding Leasing of NDMC Properties to Public Sector and Private Sector, Annual increment of Licence Fees etc. On going through the First Appeal filed by the Appellant on 29.12.2023, it is observed that the information has not provided to the appellant as asked for by him under RTI Application dated 10.10.2023 by the PIO (E-I).
Accordingly, PIO(E-I) is directed to provide the information to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act-2005 within 10 days on receipt Page 2 of 4 of the order without fail. Now, therefore, in exercise of this powers confirmed under section 19(6) of the RTI Act-2005 and in view of the above said appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed off."
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Not Present.
4. Proof of having served a copy of second appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 19.03.2024 is not available on record.
5. Both the parties were not present despite hearing notice being served in advance.
Decision:
6. From the perusal of the records, it has come to the attention of the Commission that the hearing notice was duly served on the Respondent, but the Respondent was not present to attend the hearing neither any written submissions were uploaded on the Commission's portal. It seems that the office of the Respondent Public Authority has no seriousness as this approach tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission as it violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the Respondent Public Authority.
7. Further, there is nothing on record to show that any reply was given by the PIO to the RTI application of the Complainant even after the directions given by the FAA. In view of the above, inaction on the part of the Respondent is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, to the concerned PIO for not providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Appellant.
Page 3 of 48. The Respondent is directed to provide reply/information to the Appellant as per the directions of the FAA, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
9. Shri Radha Krishan, FAA/Director (Estate-I) is directed to ensure compliance of this order and ensure to serve a copy of this order to the concerned PIO for compliance.
The above-mentioned second appeal 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 Copy To:
The FAA, New Delhi Municipal Council, Estate-I Department, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)