Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rahul vs Irrigation And Flood Control ... on 3 December, 2025

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई िद     ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/IAFCD/C/2024/619736

Rahul                                                  ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
PIO,
Irrigation And Flood Control
Department Delhi, L.M. Bund
Office Complex, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi - 110031                                            .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :    27.11.2025
Date of Decision                     :    02.12.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on             :    12.03.2024
CPIO replied on                      :    09.05.2024
First appeal filed on                :    Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order    :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :    13.05.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

"RTI Application regarding Road Construction in Pratap Nagar C Block I am writing to file an RTI application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the lack of construction of a proper road in Pratap Nagar C Block. This situation has caused significant inconvenience and hardship to residents for the past several years. Specific points on which I request information are:

1.Copies of any feasibility studies or project proposals conducted for road construction in Pratap Nagar C Block in the last five years.

2.If there were previous plans for road construction, reasons for those plans being shelved and any action taken against any official, if yes please attach action taken report and if not why?

3.Details on any budgetary allocations made for road construction in Pratap Nagar C Block in the past five years and how those funds were ultimately used.

4.A copy of the department's current development plan for the area, specifically mentioning if there are any road construction projects included for Pratap Nagar C Block.

5. The timeline for including road construction in Pratap Nagar C Block in the department's development plans, if not already included.

6.Details of any inspections conducted to assess the current road conditions in Pratap Nagar C Block. If inspections were conducted, copies of the inspection reports.

7.Information on any alternative solutions considered by the department for improving road conditions in Pratap Nagar C Block in the absence of a planned road construction project.

8.Details on the feasibility and timeline for implementing these alternative solutions."

2. The PIO vide its letter dated 09.05.2024 provided information to the Complainant, which states as under:

"With reference to your online RTI application of above said ID. Please find enclosed herewith the requisite information available in this office in 8pages for information."

3. The Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Hari Ram, Assistant Accounts Officer present in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.05.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same has been reproduced hereinbelow:

"With reference to your office letter No. File No. CIC/IAFCD/C/2024/619736 dated 31.10.2025 regarding furnishing the status report in the above said matter. In this regard, it is stated that the reply has been given to the applicant on 09.05.2024 (copy enclosed) and the same is returned back in this office with remarks of the Postal Authority i.e. "Address Not Found" (copy enclosed) and same is submitted for your reference please"

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that reply/information was sent to the Complainant was returned to their office undelivered and when at the stage of First Appeal, copy of reply was given to the Complainant.

Decision:

8. The Commission observes from perusal of records that the main premise of the instant complaint was non-receipt of desired information from the Respondent. The Commission observes that the PIO vide its letter dated 09.05.2024 had provided reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI application and as per the documents available on their record. The Complainant in his complaint admitted having received the reply dated 09.05.2024 from the Respondent but contended that no reply/information was provided to him by the PIO within stipulated period.

9. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the PIO and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. The Respondent contended that reply dated 09.05.2024 sent to the Complainant received back undelivered in their office.

10. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

11. The Commission observes that reply/information was not provided to the Complainant within stipulated period under the RTI Act. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period under the RTI Act.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 CIC/IAFCD/C/2024/619736 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)