Central Information Commission
Mr. Shyam Budhiraja vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 21 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00052/1201
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00052/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Budhiraja
5/18 W.E.A. Karol Bagh
New Delhi- 110005.
Respondent : Mr. N.K Gupta
Superintendent Engineer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Karol Bagh Zone.
New Delhi-110005
RTI filed on : 03/07/2008
PIO replied : 23/07/2008
First appeal filed on : 04/08/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 19/08/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 18/10/2008
Information soughtand replies, if any:
The appellant sought to know regarding condition of the roads in WEA. The details of the information asked are given below:
S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply 01 What emergent steps have been Whenever any road is found damaged or any
taken to improve the road pothole is noticed then it is immediately repaired. structure in the area?
02 Has any special drive been As stated above, the roads and potholes are planned/launched to level the repaired immediately to avoid stagnation of roads, lanes etc to end water water. The roads and lanes also are checked from stagnation of rainy water. time to time.
03 What steps been taken to prevent This pertains to DHO/KBZ.
breaking of seasonal (rainy) diseases?
04 Total amount of expenditure The work carrying out repairs and filling incurred on improvement and potholes is carried out departmentally to meet the repair of road structure since end emergency. No records for department of rainy season last year to the expenditure are maintained. start of rainy season this year?
The First Appellate Authority Order:
The appellant filed the first the first appeal on the ground that the information is not complete and incorrect. The First Appellate Authority gave his order and disposed off the appeal accordingly:
The FAA said, "Appellant has contended that he has not been given the information asked for. It is directed that information be supplied to the appellant within a week of the issue of this order."
Then the appellant filed the second appeal on the ground that the information provided by the PIO after the FAA order, misleading.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Shyam Budhiraja Respondent: Mr. S.K.Singhal APIO The answers provided by the PIO are not based on records but appear to be based on what he feels would look good. The PIO is directed to provide the answers to the first three points based on the records.
Decision:
The appeal allowed.
The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 5 February 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21st January 2009 (For any further correspondence please mention the decision No.)