Central Information Commission
Shri Bhim Sain vs Military Engineering Services on 1 September, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01692 dated 27-11-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Bhim Sain
Respondent: Military Engineering Services.
FACTS
By an application of 27-6-07 Shri Bhim Sain of Kabul Line, Delhi Cantt applied to the Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone, Delhi Cantt. seeking the following information:
1. Copy of the contract with terms & conditions of work at site of HQ EME Delhi Cantt given to Shri Sunil Gupta, Contractor of M/s Contractions vide CA No. CE-DZ 19/2005-06 F working with GE Project West Delhi Cantt-10.
2. As per letter issued by Shri A. K. Sharma, DES Chief Engineer Delhi Zone and Appellate authority (under RTI Act 2005) (copy attached herewith fax your information).
The following information may please be provided to undersigned.
1. Copy of certificate or copy of Diploma Degree of Eng mentioned is above said letter issued by above said contractor to Eng in charge (AGE)/ Contract issued by MES authority.
2. Whether Shri Y. N. Saxena was not employed because his name is not mentioned in the above said letter when a part of salary is paid by above said contractor and his copy of certificate or degree may also be proved.
3. Kindly provide separate ratio as following:-
1. Brick work, 2. plaster work, 3. RCC work."
To this he received a reply dated 30th July, 07 from Col. Dalip Banerjee, CPIO providing him point-wise information as below:
"Para 1 particulars of information with regard to terms and conditions of contract No. CE DZ 19/2005-06 is voluminous. Therefore, you are requested to visit this Zone (E-8 Section) for seeing the requisite details with prior information to CPIO this Zone.
Para 2 (1) Copies of the degrees of the following engineers employed by the contractor are enclosed herewith.
(i) Shri Ram Kumar Gupta.
(ii) Shri Ashwani Kumar Kapoor.
(iii) Shri N. K. Malhotra, IDSE, (Retd MES).1
(iv) Shri Madan Lal.
(v) Shri P. K. Singh.
(vi) Shri Pawan Kumar.
(vii) Shri Malhotra, Ex EE (copy of ID card enclosed).
(c ) Para 2 (2) The contractor has not approached/ given documents for employment of Shri Y. N. Saxena, as an Engineer at site. Hence as per records, the individual has not been employed by the contractor at site.
(d) Para 2 (3) The ratios of various materials are as under:-
(i) Brick Work Ratio of mortar is 1:6
(ii) Plaster Work Ratio of Mortar is 1:6
(ii) RCC Work M-25 Design Mix Concrete."
Not satisfied with this response Shri Bhim Sain moved his first appeal before Shri A.K. Sharma, Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone on 25-8-07 upon which Shri A.K. Sharma in his of 27th September, 2007 responded as follows:
"I have examined your above mentioned appeal in light of the reply given to your earlier application dated 27 June 2007 by the CPIO vide this Headquarters letter No. 15900/RTI/38/EIB® dated 30th July 07 and have found that: -
(a) The particulars of information with regard to terms and conditions of Contract No. CE-DZ-19/2005-06 being voluminous and technical in nature was not supplied to you. Instead, you were asked to visit this Headquarters to examine the documents as required.
(b) Although Shri N. K. Malhotra's name has been mentioned in Para 2 (nb) (iii) of this Headquarters letter No. 15900/RTI/38/EIB® dated 30th July 2007 and Shri Malhotra's name has been repeated in Para 2 (b) (vii), they are two different individuals having the same surname. It is confirmed that the contractor concerned employed Shri T. R. Malhotra, for a limited period.
(c) The contractor has neither approached the Department regarding employment of Shri Y. N. Saxena nor given any documents regarding the same. As per records, the contractor has not employed Shri Y. N. Saxena."
Appellant has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
1. "The notice may please be issued to Respondent for comments.
2. The information sought by the appellant may kindly be directed to the supply.
3. The cost, penalties and complainant may kindly please be provided to the appellant."2
The appeal was heard on 1 -9-2008. The following are present.
Appellants Shri Bhim Sain.
Respondents Col. D. Banerjee, CPIO, HQCE, Delhi Zone.
Shri S. Sharma, EE, HQCE, Delhi Zone.
Shri N. K. Kharbanda, AE, GE (P), West.
We asked appellant Shri Bhim Sain whether he had availed the offer of CPIO to visit Zone P-8 Section for inspection of the record regarding contract CEDZ/90/2005-06. He stated that he had not been fit enough for this purpose but was willing now to conduct the inspection if he could obtain copies of documents identified. Shri S. Sharma, EE Hqrs. C.E. Delhi Zone, agreed this to.
On the question of information supplied to appellant regarding Shri N.K. Malhotra the confusion has arisen in that CPIO Col. Banerjee's response the name Malhotra is mentioned twice at serial No. (iii) and (vii). Col. Banerjee clarified that both Malhotras were one and the diploma on which information was provided belongs to N.K. Malhotra, IDSE, Retd. MES. No information had, in fact, been provided regarding T.R. Malhotra who had not been employed on a regular basis because of failure to submit his degree; therefore, his name is not mentioned in this list. However, in the orders of Shri A.K. Sharma, Appellate Authority it is mentioned that the Malhotra mentioned at serial No. (vii) of the CPIO's reply is one Shri T.R. Malhotra, which is what has caused the confusion, since no degree of Shri T.R. Malhotra was attached with the information supplied by Col. Banerjee. The degree and ID card attached were those of Shri NK Malhotra.
Insofar as the employment of Y.N. Saxena is concerned Shri S. Sharma confirmed that the department had no record of employment of Shri Saxena, although, if a contractor engages engineers in the execution of his work, he is expected to do so only with the permission of the Department, which in this case has not been done. Upon this, appellant Shri Bhim Sain submitted that he has evidence to show that in fact, Y.N. Saxena had been 3 paid by the contractor, to which EE Shri S. Sharma responded that this was the responsibility of the contractor.
DECISION NOTICE Appellant Shri Bhim Sain will now visit the office of EE, Hqrs. Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone on Friday the 5th September, 2008 at a mutually convenient time to conduct the inspection offered and agreed t. Since this offer was made by the CPIO in responding to the application, it cannot be treated as time barred u/s 7 (6) and, therefore, any further documents provided will be on payment of the necessary fee.
With regard to appellant's doubts on the veracity of the information provided in answer to questions 2 and 3 of his RTI Application, these has been set at rest in the hearing. Thus, it has been clarified that no information has been provided regarding Shri T.R. Malhotra and that the department has no information regarding employment of Shri Y.N. Saxena.
The only question that remains is regarding the delay in response to the application dated 27-6-07, to which a reply has gone only on 30-7-07, a delay of 3 days. On inspection of the file we find, however, that the application was received in the office of CPIO Col. Banerjee only on 2-7-07, which would mean that the response is well within the time limit mandated u/s 7 (1) of the RTI Act.
This Appeal now stands disposed of. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 1-9-2008 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 1-9-2008 5