Central Information Commission
Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Mcd), ... on 28 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00248 dated 7.3.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain
Respondent - Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Engg. Dep't.
ORDER
In our decision of 15.2.08, we had decided as follows:
"The information sought by appellant Sh. Jai Bhagwan Jain has now been supplied. However, this has only happened as a result of a second appeal before us followed by a hearing, whereas since the information had not been supplied earlier. If not satisfied with the information now supplied, it will be open to Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain to move a fresh first appeal u/s 19(1), since this recourse has not yet been exhausted in this case since information has only now been provided.
However, we cannot approve of the time that it has taken to respond to an application asking for simple information on laws and procedures governing action taken by MCD. PIO, ME-cum-E-in-C Engineering Department together with A.D.C. (Land & Estates) and Chief Law Officer will, therefore, show cause in writing by 5.3.08 u/s 20(1) read with Section 5 (5), as to why they should not be held liable for failure to provide information to appellant Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain on the date when it became due i.e. 21.12.06, up to 12.12.'07 when part of the information was supplied, @ Rs. 250/- a day, subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/-. In the alternative they may appear before us personally so to do on 7.3.2008 at 10.00 a.m."
Accordingly we have received written submissions from PIO Shri Ravi Dass, ME-cum-E-in-C, MCD and Shri A. K. Sharma, Chief Law Officer, Law Department HQ, MCD. In his response Shri Ravi Dass has submitted that information sought in ID No. 358 was supplied "immediately upon collecting the same from other Departments". He has then gone on to explain the matter as follows:
"That the ID under reference of Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain which has received on 23.11.2006 was duly replied well in time i.e. on 12.12.2006. Moreover, the applicant again asked for the copy of order/ notification etc whereby Executive Engineers are authorized for demolition/ removal of encroachments. The same has also 1 been replied suitably vide letter No/ HC/ RTI/Engg/HQ/07/6441 dated 28.2.2007."
The delay in supplying Office Order dated 3.7.77 and 16.1.86 arose from having to collect these from other Departments. Chief Law Officer in his response has, after examining the issue, stated as follows:
"The application under reference was received by the Law Dep't. on 13.12.06 and the reply to the same was dispatched to the applicant on 28.12.06 vide Speed Post A. D. ensuring delivery within 24 hours. It is worthwhile to mention here that between 13.12.06 and 27.12.06 (14 days) there were 5 off days as per following details:
1. 16.12.2006 Saturday.
2. 17.12.2006 Sunday.
3. 23.12.2006 Saturday
4. 24.12.2006 Sunday.
5. 25.12.2006 Monday (Christmas Day) It is clear from the above that the application under reference has been replied within 10 working days and there is no delay on the part of Chief Law Officer in disposing of the same. It is submitted that great care and caution is taken by the Law Dep't while dealing with the applications received under Right to Information Act despite the fact that officers of the Law Dep't remain busy in handling voluminous litigation work of MCD."
While examining the above file, we find that infact the RTI request is dated 21.11.06, as per the fee receipt. The response of 12.12.06 was, therefore, within the prescribed time limit as mandated u/s 7(1). There has been an error in calculating the time in our Order of 15.2.08 which states that response has gone on 12.12.07, whereas this requires to be corrected to read as 12.12.06. In light of this, there remains no cause of action. This appeal is now closed.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 28.11.2008 2 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 28.11.2008 3