Central Information Commission
Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 24 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000194/11637
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000194
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar
628/3, Shivaji Pul Mithai
Delhi - 110006
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
Public Information Officer & SE Office of the Superintending Engineer Nigam Bhawan, Anand Parvat, Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 27/08/2010 PIO replied : 06/10/2010 First appeal filed on : 0411/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 27/11/2010 Second Appeal received on : 17/01/2011 Information Sought:
The given RTI Application is based on 13 issues. The issues of the RTI application are as follows:
1. Providing of the certified copy of Unit Rate Method Policy along with all the circulars and office order in the Financial Year 2009-10 which are applicable in MCD.
2. Providing of the certified copy of policy to award work under URM in the financial year 2009-10.
3. Whether tenders were opened under URM in Karol Bagh zone of Delhi after March 2010.
4. Time prescribed for allotment of work
5. Details of the tenders opened and details of the work not awarded till09/08/2010.
6. Time required to allot the remaining work.
7. Name of the officer responsible for the delay in allotting the remaining work.
8. Work taken under URM whether completed or not.
9. The date by which the incomplete work shall be completed and proof of action taken on the agency which completed the allotted work in time.
10. Reasons as to why the work is incomplete as URM method is applied only for emergent work.
11. Whether any tenders were opened after March, 2010 till 09/08/2010(till date), if opened then details of the agency.
12. Details of the officer to be penalized by the Central Information Commission u/s 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. How many officers have paid the penalty? The details of the DD/ Cheque No. with date and amount.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) For points 1 and 2: Information not available in the records. Copy of the RTI has been endorsed to Superintending Engineer (Planning) to provide the reply. For Point 3: The sought information of 19 pages can be obtained after payment of Rs. 2/- per page. For Point 4: Information not available in the records. Copy of the RTI has been endorsed to Superintending Engineer (Planning) to provide the reply.
For Point 5: 133 tenders were opened in March 2010 and 31 tenders pending for award of work. For Point 6: The time limit cannot be specified due to uncertainty of budget availability. For Point 7: None of the officers can be held liable for the delay as the delay is due to uncertainty of budget availability.
For Point 8: The list of the work taken up since March 2010 has been enclosed. For Point 9: All works which are awarded have different time of completion. If the delay is caused by the department, then the contractor is suitably compensated for the same but if the delay is due to the contractor then he is penalized for the same.
For Point 10: Same as above For Point 11: The sought information of 3 pages can be obtained after payment of Rs. 2/- per page. For Point 12: Information not available in the records. For Point 13: Information not available in the records. First Appeal:
No information was provided within 30 days. The information provided is vague.
The certified copies have not been attached with the PIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to:
1. Supply copies of the documents referred to in the reply of the RTI application given by him, free of cost to the appellant.
2. To liaise with the planning department, obtain the information relating to that department and provide it to the appellant within 4 weeks from the date of issuing of this order.
For any discrepancy/deficiency noted by the Appellant in the information already supplied by the PIO, the appellant is advised to visit the office of the PIO on 20th of November at 11.00AM for perusing the record available with the PIO and get the relevant information required by him. The appeal is disposed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non compliance of the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar;
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra, Public Information Officer & SE; Mr. A.K. Gupta, EE(M-I) & Deemed PIO; and Mr. S. K. Singhal ,EE(M-II) & Deemed PIO; The PIO has supplied the information but the appellant claims that there are certain discrepancies and therefore wishes to inspect the files. The Appellant states that with respect to query-7 the PIO has informed him that the works under URM were not awarded due to paucity of budgetary funds. The Deemed PIO Mr. A. K. Gupta confirms this before the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. A. K. Gupta, EE(M-I) to facilitate an inspection of the relevant files by the Appellant on 07 April 2011 from 11.00AM onwards at his office. He will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.
The Commission also directs Mr. S. K. Singhal, EE(M-II) to facilitate an inspection of the relevant files by the Appellant on 07 April 2011 from 02.00PM onwards at his office. He will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.
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 24 March 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RP)