Central Information Commission
Rajeev Gupta vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 12 September, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/609423
CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/609425
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/610152
Shri Rajiv Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1.PIO/E.E.-(M-I)/Rohini, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through: Sh.S.K.Gupta, AE(M)I/Rohini Zone
2. PIO/E.E.-(M-II)/Narela, North Delhi Municipal
Corporation
Through: Sh.Vimal Bhandari, AE(M)II/Narela
Zone
Date
: 30.08.2019
of Hearing : : 09.09.2019
Date of Decision : 11.09.2019
Information Commissioner : Y.K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
609423 30.10.2017 10.11.2017 13.12.2017 26.12.2017
609425 30.10.2017 10.11.2017 13.12.2017 26.12.2017
610152 30.10.2017 24.11.2017 11.12.2017 16.01.2018
CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/609423
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2017, seeking information
on sixteen points regarding demolition and non-availability of public toilets
near H-3 block, Sec-16, Rohini, Delhi. The RTI application was followed by
other complaints filed before the MCD, PGMS, CPGRAMS and the Lt. Governor.
Appellant sought the following information on the action taken by the MCD on
above complaints, why MCD demolished the public toilets, how long would it
take to reconstruct them, number of toilets in Sector-16, Rohini etc.
PIO/ AE-II and J.E.-24 vide letter dated 10.11.2017 provided point wise
information to the Appellant.E.E.(M-I)RZ vide letter dated 10.11.2017 also
provided a point wise reply to the Appellant.
SV - Page 1 of 5
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 13.12.2017
requesting the dates of demolition of two toilets near H-3, Sector-16, Rohini,
reasons for their demolition and reason for non-construction of toilets in that
area. Appellant further sought the estimated time for pending complaints and
replies to query no. 9, 10, 11 and 15.
FAA/Suptdg. Engineer-I vide order dated 26.12.2017 directed PIO/EE(M)-I/RZ
to furnish specific reply of all the points to the Appellant as per his RTI
application within two weeks.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.
Respondent claims that despite several efforts by their Deptt., the residents of the Appellant's area do not allow them to construct the toilets, for reasons best known to them. Respondent states that they have even received a letter/direction from the area councillor, not to construct public toilets in that area.
Decision:
Perusal of the records reveal that the defence taken by the Respondent/APIO vide letter dated 10.11.2017, for denying the information to the Appellant is baseless and futile. In respect of queries no 4 and 9, the reply provided to the Appellant clearly amounts to a wrong interpretation of the RTI Act. Moreover, despite receiving directions from the FAA,the PIO has failed to provide information to the Appellant. It is evident that the RTI application at hand has not been answered and/or been dealt with appropriately.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs:
(i). APIO/ Sh.S.K.Gupta, AE(M)I/Rohini Zone to submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation for i) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, ii) non-compliance of the FAA's order, thereby causing an obstruction in the flow of informationand (iii) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.This explanation must reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
(ii). APIO/ Sh.S.K.Gupta, AE(M)I/Rohini Zone to provide a revisedreply to the Appellant against each of the queries raised in the RTI application, in compliance with the FAO thereof. The Commission grants opportunity to APIO/ Sh.S.K.Guptato obtain the necessary information from the relevant custodians of information thereof and provide the same to the Appellant within three weeks from the date of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard by 11.10.2019.SV - Page 2 of 5
It is made clear that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned APIO. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/609425 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2017, seeking information on eleven points regarding garbage van not coming on regular basis in their street and 6 ft. deep drain not covered by RCC slabs near Govt. school. Appellant sought the following information:-
1. Action taken by MCD on PGMS complaints.
2. Action taken on mayor complaints
3. Action taken on CPGRAMS complaints.
4. Action taken on CIC decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001741/13989 appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001741.
5. Why six feet deep drain is not covered with RCC slabs even after CIC order till date? And other related information etc. PIO vide order dated 10.11.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 13.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 26.12.2017 directed PIO/EE(M)-I/RZ to furnish a specific reply to all the points to the Appellant within two weeks.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Respondent submits that the drain in question has duly been covered with slabs pursuant to the PGMS complaints by the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of available records reveal that neither the APIO has provided a satisfactory reply to the Appellant nor has there been compliance of the directions issued by the FAA. In respect to the query no. 6, instead of transferring the application to the actual custodian of records under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the Respondent has instead denied the information pertaining to the House Tax Deptt. Such conduct of the Respondent clearly amounts to a violation of the RTI Act.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs:
(i). APIO/ Sh.S.K.Gupta, AE(M)I/Rohini Zone to submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation fora) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, b) non-compliance of the FAA's order, thereby causing an obstruction in the flow of informationandc) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.This explanation must reach the SV - Page 3 of 5 Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
(ii). APIO/ Sh.S.K.Gupta, AE(M)I/Rohini Zone to provide a revised reply to the Appellant against each of the queries raised in the RTI application, in compliance with the FAO thereof. The Commission grants opportunity to APIO/ Sh.S.K.Gupta to obtain the necessary information from the relevant custodians of information thereof and provide the same to the Appellant within three weeks from the date of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard by 11.10.2019.
It is made clear that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned APIO. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/610152 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2017, seeking information on ten points regarding badly damaged roads in PoothKurd Village near Tulip International School. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. If a person delays the payment of house tax then he is deprived of rebate and a late fee is also charged. What should MCD do for such a long delay?
2. Action taken by MCD on PGMC complaints, Lt. Governor complaints and action on CPGRAMS complaint.
3. How much time does MCD takes for such type of complaints?
4. What is the time cycle for reconstruction of above roads?
5. When MCD has constructed last time these roads according to record give details?
6. What is its next due date for routine reconstruction? And other related issues.
PIO/EE(Narela) Zone on 27.12.2017, forwarded the reply received from the PIO/AE-31-N vide letter dated 24.11.2017,which provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 11.12.2017. FAA/Suptdg., Engineer, Narela Zone vide order dated 16.01.2018 directed the PIO to give the parawise reply to the Applicant within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of hearing notice in advance.SV - Page 4 of 5
Respondent admits to havenot complied with the directions of the FAA. However, Respondent submits that a satisfactory answer to the extent of availability of the information was duly provided.
Perusal of available records reveal that neither the APIO has provided a satisfactory reply to the Appellant nor has there been compliance of the directions issued by the FAA. In respect to the query no. 7, Respondent denies information for the lack of availability of the record with the division. Such conduct of the Respondent clearly amounts to a violation of the RTI Act.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs:
(i). PIO/Sh.Vimal Bhandari, AE(M)II/Narela Zone to submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation fora) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, b) non-compliance of the FAA's order, thereby causing an obstruction in the flow of informationandc) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.This explanation must reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
(ii). PIO/Sh.Vimal Bhandari, AE(M)II/Narela Zone to provide a revised reply to the Appellant against each of the queries raised in the RTI application, in compliance with the FAO thereof. The Commission grants opportunity to APIO/ Sh.S.K.Gupta to obtain the necessary information from the relevant custodians of information thereof and provide the same to the Appellant within three weeks from the date of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard by 11.10.2019.
It is made clear that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned APIO. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 SV - Page 5 of 5