Central Information Commission
Mr.Harit Marwah vs Delhi Jal Board, Gnctd on 25 July, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001768AD
Date of Hearing : July 25, 2011
Date of Decision : July 25, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Harit Marwah
A4/62, 1st & II Floor,
Paschim Vihar,
Near Mandir,
New Delhi 110 063
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Delhi Jal Board
Represented by: Shri Paras Ram, Joint Director and Shri S.K. Sharma, ZRO West I
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001768AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 21.04.2011, filed with the PIO, Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi, sought various information (9 items) in respect of water connections. The PIO, on 23.05.2011, informed the Applicant that since the ZRO, West II P B, whose assistance has been sought in the matter, had not replied so far, a reminder letter is being issued to him with an advice that he should furnish the information directly to the Applicant. The Applicant, on not receiving any information from the PIO or deemed PIO, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 04.06.2011. The AA, on 14.06.2011, after hearing the Appellant, directed the APIO (i.e ZRO(W)II) to furnish the information to the Appellant by 20.06.2011. The ZRO, in the meanwhile, vide his communication dated 06.06.2011, had furnished the information to the Appellant. He also demanded the requisite fee wherever required. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition before the Commission on 25.06.2011 alleging that the information supplied by the APIO/ZRO is incomplete and false. He also demanded that penal action be initiated against officers responsible for the delay and for the harassment he was made to undergo..
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that he is presently interested in receiving answers/information in respect of queries at item nos. 6 and 7 of his RTIapplication. These queries were accordingly discussed as given below:
Item No. 6:
3. This query does not fit into the definition of information as given in Section 2(f) of the RTIAct as it fails to identify any material information available in the records available with the Public Authority . No disclosure obligation can, therefore, be cast on the Respondents to answer this query. Item No. 7:
4. The Appellant wanted to know details of requests made regarding stoppage of water connections till the completion of construction work as also their resumption after the completion of construction work. The Respondents agreed to give this information to the Appellant. It is accordingly directed that the PIO should furnish this information to the Appellant by 25.08.2011.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
6. As regard complaint about delayed supply of information to the Appellant, the ZRO(W)II is directed to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTIAct should not be imposed upon him for delaying the transmission of information to the Appellant. Returnable by 12.08.2011.
7. The PIO shall serve a copy of this order to the ZRO(W)II for him to comply with the direction above.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Harit Marwah A4/62, 1st & II Floor, Paschim Vihar, Near Mandir, New Delhi 110 063
2. The Appellate Authority Delhi Jal Board Room No. 512, Varunalaya PhaseII Karol Bagh New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer Delhi Jal Board Office of Joint Director (R) S/SW Jal Sadan, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/ Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.