Central Information Commission
Gaurav Singh Chauhan vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee on 26 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPCCM/A/2024/116727
Gaurav Singh Chauhan .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO under RTI, Delhi Pollution
Control Committee, 5th Floor,
ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025
Date of Decision : 25.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 05.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's : 15.03.2024
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.10.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
1. How many factories in narela industrial area is authorized to manufacture the plastic carry bags as approved by the government, and under which section/ act/rules/regulations the license was granted to these factories to manufacture the plastic carry bags kindly provide information with certified true copies.Page 1 of 6
2. In how many factories in narela industrial area plastic carry bags is manufactured below the prescribed standards laid down by the government and dpcc, and how many factories was examined in the period of last one year by the official's of the dpcc, that they are manufacturing the plastic carry bags as prescribed standard or not and in which official record/document/register all the details of investigation/examination was recorded/noted kindly provide information with the certified true copies.
3. In narela industrial area during the investigation/examination/monitoring how many factories are found in the past two years who illegally manufactured the plastic carry bags below prescribed standard (non-biodegradable) and what kind of action was taken against them by which officials of the dpcc and in which sections and rules, regulations and what is the current status of these factories and their license kindly provide information with the certified true copies.
4. In narela industrial area who is the responsible/authorized/appointed/concern official to check/monitor/investigate weather the factories who have the license to manufacture the plastic carry bag is manufacturing the plastic carry bags within the prescribed standard or not and what is the name, address and mobile number of the official of dpcc kindly provide information with the certified true copies.
5. In narela industrial area how many factories are currently manufacturing plastic carry bags less than 50 microns and what type of action was/is taken against these factories and how many court cases was registered in the last two years against these of factories and in which sections and acts, and what was happened to the machines which was seized by the officials during the investigation and what is the present status of these factories and the cases registered against them kindly provide information with the certified true copies.
6. Which department/official/ authorize person initiating/responsible/conducting the investigation against the currently posted official of dpcc in narela industrial area for dereliction of his duty during the investigation by not taking action in the time limit prescribed under law against the Factories running in narela industrial area which are manufacturing the prohibited and below standard (non-biodegradable less than 50 microns) plastic carry bags Page 2 of 6 with the collusion of the currently posted official of dpcc kindly provide information with the certified true copies
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.01.2024 stating as under:
" Reply is as follows:-Question No. 1,2,3,4 & 6
No such complied data available with this cell.Question No. 5 & 7
No such information available in material form/compiled form. However for more details refer DPCC website.
(https://www.dpcc.delhigovt.nic.in/)"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2024 stated as under:
" Heard both the parties.
After hearing, I find that available information already provided to the appellant but appellant was not satisfied. Therefore, Deemed SPIO is directed to provide the action taken report for the last six months as desired by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off."
4. PIO, DPCC furnished reply vide letter dated 04.04.2024 as under:
"..This has reference to your RTI application ID No 6175 dated 11.12.2023 under RTI Act, 2005. Please find enclosed herewith the information provided by the concerned cell, as per order of First Appellate Authority. RTI Appeal ID No 257/24 order dated 15.03.2024...
Reply is as under:-
During the drives conducted since March 2023 to December 2023, 498 local vendors were found defaulters against which action has been taken. Further, 49 manufacturers were found to be Page 3 of 6 defaulters for violation of provision of PWM Rules, 2016 amended till date against which action is under process..."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. A written submission dated 07.11.2025 has been received from Shri M S Rawat, PIO, DPCC and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...The Appellant sought information under RTI Act, vide letter dated 11.12.2023 (copy enclosed) Vide letter dated 17.01.2024, the Appellant was given information by the SPIO, on the basis of information furnished by Deemed State Public Information Officer,(copy enclosed).
The applicant being dissatisfied filed an Appeal before First Appellate Authority on 05.02.2024. (copy enclosed) The First Appellate Authority heard the matter on 27.02.2024 and ordered that "Deemed SPIO is directed to provide the action taken report for the last six months as desired by the appellant".
The order of First Appellate Authority is enclosed. Information provided by the deemed SPIO in accordance with the order First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 04.04.2024. Submission by deemed SPIO before the First Appellate Authority on 04.04.2024 is enclosed herewith. In view of the above, it is submitted that complete information has been provided to the appellate as per the RTI Act, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri M.S. Rawat, SEE/, Shri Vikas Khatuja, EE/POP and Shri Sajjan Kumar, JEE/PIO- participated in the hearing.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 01.10.2024 is not available on record.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that 49 manufacturers were found to be defaulters for Page 4 of 6 violation of provision of PWM Rules, 2016 amended till date against which action is under process.
Decision:
9. The Commission at the outset upon a perusal of records observes that the instant Second Appeal is filed after expiry of stipulated time frame of 90 days as envisaged under the RTI Act. Further, the Appellant has not mentioned any reasonable grounds or given any cogent justification for such inordinate delay in filing this appeal. In this regard, the Commission would like to bring attention of the appellant towards a legal maxim i.e. "Vigilantibus Non Dormientbus Jura Subveniunt" which means the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.
10. Even after taking empathetic view in the matter, the Commission by taking cognizance of submissions made by the Respondent notes that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory but a copy of the same has not been sent to the Appellant. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to send copy of the same along with relevant annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
11. Having observed as above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority Delhi Pollution Control Committee, 5th Floor, ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)