Central Information Commission
Mrsandeep Dabas vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001225-YA
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001226-YA
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001227-YA
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001722-YA
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001968
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001969
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002073
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002074
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002075
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002343
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2014
Date of Decision : 19.11.2014
Appellant : Shri Sandeep Dabas
Delhi.
Respondent : Smt. Shanti Soren, PIO/DDE/RZ
Education Dept. North Delhi Municipal Corp., Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present. The appellant vide several RTI applications has raised multiple queries seeking similar information from the respondent authority. Details of all RTI applications are reproduced below in a tabular form:
Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First Appeal FAA's order
001225 04.02.2013 07.03.2013 - 05.03.2013
001226 04.02.2013 07.03.2013 - 05.03.2013
001227 18.04.2013 20.05.2013 31.05.2013 24.06.2013
001722 24.06.2013 19.07.2013 26.07.2013 13.08.2013
Page 1 of 10
001968 29.04.2013 24.05.2013 31.05.2013 24.06.2013
001969 22.04.2013 25.05.2013 31.05.2013 24.06.2013
002073 05.01.2014 24.01.2014 05.02.2014 25.02.2014
002074 30.12.2013 24.01.2014 05.02.2013 29.04.2014
002075 07.04.2014 09.05.2014 19.05.2014 08.07.2014
002343 27.05.2013 19.06.2013 25.06.2013 13.08.2013
All the appeals have been clubbed as the subject matter of the RTI applications is similar and pertains to the same respondent authority, thus, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the cases are being heard & decided together.
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001225-YA The appellant filed an RTI application on 04.02.2013, seeking information on action taken on two e-mails sent by him, certified copy of his attendance register, monthly statement for January 2013, posts of teachers/principals allocated, etc. regarding NDMC School, Shahbad, Daulatpur from 01.01.2013 to 31.01.2013. On not receiving any reply from the PIo within prescribed time, appellant filed a complaint dt. 07.03.2013 before the Commission and the matter was remanded back to the FAA vide order 05.04.2013 to enquire into the allegations made by the appellant and to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. PIO/ADE/RZ vide reply dt. 05.03.2013 provided information in part on points 9 to 12 and for Points 1 to 8 stated that the same are not in office record and information will be provided only after obtaining the same from concerned office/school. Later, PIO provided information on Points 1 to 8 to the appellant vide letter dt. 13.05.2013.
The appellant stated that when he was in NDMC School, Shahbad Daulatpur, he had sent the said e-mails for which he has sought the ATR in his RTI application. The respondent stated that the said emails are not available in record. The appellant stated that he can retrieve the same from his then official email ID if an opportunity is provided to him. The respondent agreed for the same.
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001226-YA The respondent stated that they have not brought the relevant record as the same was not informed to her. On query by the Commission, whether she received the notice in the instant case, she replied in the affirmative. The appellant filed an RTI application on 04.02.2013, seeking information regarding copy of charge-sheet served to him, preliminary enquiry report, if any, list of evidence & witnesses, etc. w.r.t complaint filed against him by Smt. Anupama & Smt. Sunita (both teachers in MCPS Mongolpuri R-I) ). On not receiving any reply from the PIO within prescribed time, appellant filed a complaint dt. 07.03.2013 before the Commission and the matter was remanded back to the FAA vide order 05.04.2013 to enquire into the allegations made by the appellant and to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. PIO/ADE/RZ vide reply dt. 05.03.2013 stated that matter pertains to various complaints from teacher/staff and counter complaint by the appellant and since no departmental enquiry has been initiated/conducted yet by the appropriate authority, the information cannot be furnished. The FAA in his order directed PIO to provide information available with her to the appellant, if it can be provided under the RTI Act.
Page 2 of 10The appellant stated that no information has been provided to even, despite FAA's order. The respondent stated appellant had visited their office and inspected the relevant record and that information as available was provided to the appellant. The appellant stated that the relevant files were inspected but the respondent authority never allowed copies to be taken. He stated that the said inspection serves no purpose since he does not have any record of the same and that he did not get the copies of documents that he sought. The appellant urged that another inspection be allowed, with directions to the respondent for allowing taking copies of the said record. The appellant apprised the Commission that there were three allegations made against him and after due inquiry, the same were proved to be false and even then, he was transferred to another school supposedly due to administrative reasons.
The appellant stated that he needs the information to present the same before Ld. CAT as the documents furnished before Ld. CAT by the respondent authority are false and in contradiction to the original.
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001227-YA The appellant filed an RTI application on 18.04.2013, seeking information regarding attendance records of Smt. Sunita & Smt. Anupama Kataria, (Teachers in MCPS Mangolpuri) for the months of July, September, October & November, 2012 along with certified copies of several orders issued by the Principal in the School Order Book, certified copies of computer attendance register maintained in MCPS Mangolpuri, for July, September, October & November, 2012, etc. PIO/ADE/RZ denied information on Points 1 & 2 stating that the same our third party, information on 3 & 4 was being collected from the concerned school and provided information on Point 5. The FAA in his order directed PIO to provide complete and specific information to the appellant, free of cost.
The appellant stated that no information has been provided till date, despite FAA's order. On query by the Commission as to why no information was provided, the respondent failed to reply.
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001722-YA The appellant had filed an RTI application on 24.06.2013, seeking information regarding ADE/School Inspector/RZ, name and designation of teacher/contract teacher on maternity leave in NDMC in December 2012, certified copies of teachers' attendance register of NDMC Primary School, Shahbad Daulatpur for December 2012 & January 2013, inspection of despatch register of DDE & ADE, etc. PIO/ADE/RZ provided point-wise information to the appellant. FAA/DC/RZ directed PIO to provide complete & specific information to the appellant within 15 days, free of cost.
The appellant stated that no information has been provided, despite FAA's order. The appellant stated that information on Points 6, 7 & 9 is satisfactory but on other points, information in vague and incorrect. On query by the Commission as to why the appellant is seeking information regarding leave of teachers on maternity leave, the appellant stated that the respondent authority in their affidavit submitted before the Ld. CAT have stated that he was posted in Shahbad Daulatpur Schhol as a second surplus teacher as two teachers were on maternity leave. He alleged that that was not the case and thus, he is seeking the said record. The respondent stated that information should have been provided, but the same has been done so.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001968 Page 3 of 10 The appellant filed an RTI application on 29.04.2013, seeking information regarding procedure followed for disposal of complaint filed against him, evidence produced by staff against Smt. Anupama & Smt. Sunita, evidence leading to recommendations for departmental actions against the appellant along with Smt. Anupama & Smt. Sunita, etc. PIO/ADE/RZ provided point-wise reply to the appellant. FAA/DC/RZ directed PIO to provide information available in the office, within 15 days, free of cost.
The appellant stated that no information has been provided, despite FAA's order. He stated that information on Points 1 & 2 is contradictory. The appellant stated that PIO, on one hand, is stating that the details of complaint have not been mentioned and on the other hand, has stated that only preliminary investigation have been conducted in the matter. He stated that the PIO has deliberately not disclosed the information and has tried to evade from his responsibility. He alleged that disclosure of this information would reveal the irregularities and abuse of administrative power by PIO/ADE. On query by the Commission as to why contradictory replies were given, the respondent stated that she cannot comment on why the erstwhile PIO provided misleading information, but information on the same can be provided and that it should have been provided in the first instance. She stated that a revised reply shall be provided to the appellant as per record.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001969 The appellant filed an RTI application on 22.04.2013, seeking information regarding teachers seeking transfer/transferred to different schools within Rohini Zone from 15.12.2012 to 18.04.2013, applications pending/rejected, status of application filed by appellant, etc. PIO/ADE/RZ provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. FAA/DC/RZ directed PIO to provide information available in the office, within 15 days, free of cost.
The appellant stated that no information has been provided, despite FAA's order. The appellant stated that the respondent has made it a usual practice of providing late replies and not complying with the FAA's orders. He stated that his letters are not replied to and no action is taken on his letters. He further stated that he is seeking this information because around 100 teachers had applied for transfer from one school to another including him and that all of them except him were transferred accordingly but only he wasn't transferred. He alleged that PIO being in-charge of the administration illegally did not accept his application for transfer.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002073 The appellant filed an RTI application on 02.01.2014, seeking information regarding record of movement, daily attendance/leave record of Smt. Nirmala, ADE(Phy.)/RZ, from October 2009 to 28.12.2013, list of schools inspected by her, whether she was entitled for facility of AC in her room along with copy of installation of same, copy of prior permission acquired by her to contest election in Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank, etc. The appellant stated he inadvertently wrote 'Application under RTI Act, 2001' in his RTI application which the respondent authority entertained as application under Delhi RTI Act, 2001. He stated that he clarified the fact before the FAA, to which PIO/DDE/RZ replied as under:-
"Since the appellant has clearly been filed under DRTI Act, 2001, no appeal can be entertained by Dy. Commissioner of Zone as DC Zone is not Appellate Authority under DRTI Act 2001. However, DC Zone has erroneously entertained the appeal of Shri Sandeep Dabas under DRTI Act 2001 on this deliberate wrong information and representation that the application has been filed under RTI Act."Page 4 of 10
The appellant stated that the above reply by PIO/DDE/RZ is not clear whether the RTI application has been treated under DRTI Act 2001 or RTI Act 2005. He stated that the PIO with mala fide intention has taken advantage of a clerical error and has not provided any information. He further stated that FAA vide order dt. 25.02.2014 directed PIO to provide information to the appellant. He alleged that the PIO rather than complying with the FAA's order, questioned the FAA's authority in entertaining his first appeal. He alleged that PIO has grossly violated the provisions of the RTI Act.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002074 The appellant filed an RTI application on 30.12.2013, seeking information regarding action taken report/notings/reply received/orders made on complaints/representation filed by him in NDMC Primary School, Shahbad, Daulatpur, since 29.12.2012 till date & NDMC Primary School, Mangolpuri, since 31.11.2012 to 29.12.2012, etc. PIO/ADE(Phy.)/RZ denied complete information stating that appellant has sought information in personal interest and that there is no larger public interest involved. The FAA in his order directed PIO to provide an opportunity of inspection of record and inform the appellant about the status of complaints made by him.
The appellant stated that PIO has provided no information in compliance of the FAA's order. On query by the Commission as to why the FAA's order was not complied with, the respondent stated that she cannot comment on why the then PIO did not comply with the FAA's order.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002075 The appellant filed an RTI application on 07.04.2014, seeking inspection and certified copy of Student class attendance register (from Class I to V), principal order book, teacher attendance register, boys fund register and paste file, school maintenance fund register and paste file, bulbul/scout fund register and paste file & hobby fund register and paste file of North DMC Primary School, Rithala-1st , North DMC Primary School, Rohini, Sector 16-J and North DMC Primary School, S.P. Block, Pitampura for the period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2014. PIO/DDE/RZ in his reply stated that the records are not available in zonal office and the appellant can contact the Principals of the respective Schools. The FAA in his order directed PIO to enquire into the delay in reply by him and to allow inspection of record along with copies of documents to the appellant.
The appellant stated this RTI application was filed in public interest as the matter relates to Delhi Darshan Scam. He stated that tourist buses for Delhi Darshan were running and the respondent authority sanctioned bills for the same. He produced duty slips before the Commission wherein it shows that a bus with same number was being run in two places at the same time. He stated that this is how the officials of the respondent authority have been embezzling money. He further stated that PIO directed him to contact the concerned schools for inspection of record sought in the RTI application, which is wrong a he should have either sought assistance from them for providing information to him or transferred the RTI application. The appellant stated that after receipt of PIO's reply, he contacted the Principal, MCPS, Pitampura and inspection was allowed on 14.06.2014. He stated that it was a Saturday and summer holidays were going on in the School and during the inspection, some officials came and did not allow further inspection of record, due to which no copies were taken. The appellant stated that after the order of the FAA, wherein the FAA had directed to provide complete information free of cost, PIO allowed inspection of the records and thereafter he had requested him to identify documents required but the same was never provided except a few copies till date.
Page 5 of 10The appellant alleged that such conduct of the PIO clearly establishes that she is working in connivance with other officials accused in Delhi Darshan Scam, i.e. Smt. Nirmala & Shri Kaptan Singh Ranga. He stated that after such illegal stopping of inspection of record, officials of respondent authority filed a police complaint against him and an FIR was issued. He stated that the Police found the same allegations as baseless. The appellant stated that the inspection that was allowed to him was from 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for the files that are voluminous as per the PIO. He alleged that the PIO with mala fide allowed him just two hours of time for inspection when he was aware that the documents are voluminous. The appellant requested for payment of compensation for all the harassment done to him.
On query by the Commission as to what does the respondent has to say in this regard, she stated that since the record was with the schools, the appellant was requested to contact the concerned schools for inspection.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002343 The appellant filed an RTI application on 27.05.2013, seeking information regarding e-mail IDs of all schools under NDMC, copies of circular, receipts for purchase of track suits for Games Seminar along with status of complaint against inflated/forged bills for the same pending against ADE(Phy.), Smt. Nirmala, her attendance details for specific period, etc. PIO/ADE(Phy.)/RZ provided point-wise reply to the appellant. FAA in his order directed PIO to provide information available in her office to the appellant within 15 days, free of cost.
The appellant stated that no information has been provided to him, despite FAA's order. He further stated that on Point 1, certified copy of a specific circular has been sought and the number of circular has also been mentioned but the same has not been provided till date. On query by the Commission as to why it has not been given, the respondent was not aware about the said circular. For point 2, the appellant stated that he had sought official e-mail IDs of all the schools under NDMC to which the respondent sought exemption u/s 8(d) of the RTI Act, which was not upheld by the FAA, but the same has not been provided so far. On query by the Commission as to how official email IDs of schools under NDMC come under the purview of Section 8(1)(d), the respondent failed to answer. On point 3, the appellant stated whenever an item is purchased from the school fund, record of the same is kept whereas the PIO in his reply has stated that no information is held on record for the purchase of track suits. The appellant alleged that malafide on the part of PIO. As for remaining points, the appellant stated that no information has been provided till date. The respondent stated that complete information has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
In F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001225-YA, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the particulars of the appellant's email ID along with the password and fix a date & time for retrieval of the said emails within one week of receipt of this order. The action taken report on the same will be provided to the appellant within three weeks of such retrieval. The compliance of this order shall be intimated to the Commission latest by 30th December, 2014, failing which warranted action u/s 20 will be taken.
In F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001226-YA, the Commission finds no information has been provided to the appellant, despite an opportunity of inspection being granted. Therefore, the Commission directs the PIO to keep the relevant files readily available for inspection. PIO/ADE(Phy.)/RZ shall fix a mutually convenient date & time for inspection of record for providing information as per the RTI application dt. 04.02.2013 to Page 6 of 10 the appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. The inspection shall be conducted under the supervision of FAA/DC/RZ. A compliance report of the said inspection shall also be sent to the Commission, latest by 30th December, 2014. While providing the information it will be open for the respondents to invoke Section 10 of RTI Act as deem fit. Copies/extracts be provided to the appellant on payment of requisite fee.
In F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001227-YA, the Commission finds that no information has been provided to the appellant till date. The attendance record sought for on Points 1 & 2 was denied u/s 8(1)(j) same being as third party, but the computerised attendance record was being collected from the concerned school for providing it to the appellant. Attendance record for 2 teachers was denied but the computerised attendance record can be shown, as per the PIO's reply. This clearly shows the careless approach of the PIO/ADE/RZ and constrains the Commission to view that the same was done with mala fide intention. Therefore, the Commission directs PIO/ADE/RZ to provide information on Points 1 to 5 to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, latest by 23rd December, 2014.
Further, Show cause notice is issued to the present PIO/ADE/RZ, for not providing information to the appellant, despite FAA's order. She is further directed to send a copy of this order to the erstwhile PIO/ADE/RZ, who did not provide information to the appellant within prescribed time in response to the RTI application dt. 13.08.2013 and any other official(s) responsible for obstructing the flow of information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2014 at 4:15 PM on which date they must present themselves before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 11.12.2014 positively. Written submissions received later than this date shall not be entertained. A copy of this order be sent to the erstwhile PIO/ADE/RZ, by the present PIO, with the intimation to be present before the Commission on the said date & time.
In F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001722-YA, the Commission observes that the PIO/ADE/RZ has provided vague reply to the appellant. Information on Point 1 is specific and the same should have been provided to the appellant. Information on Points 3 to 5 is said to be 'third party information being gathered.' This clearly shows that the PIO is either not acquainted with provisions of the Act as he has not taken any plea or has denied providing the same with malafide intention. Moreover, the respondent present agrees that the same should have been provided at the first instance.
Therefore, the Commission directs PIO ADE/RZ to provide specific information on Points 1 to 5 & 8 to the appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, latest by 30th December.
Further, Show cause notice is issued to the present PIO/ADE/RZ, for not providing correct information to the appellant, despite FAA's order. She is further directed to send a copy of this order to the erstwhile PIO/ADE/RZ, who provided incorrect information to the appellant in response to the RTI application dt. 24.06.2013 and any other official(s) responsible for obstructing the flow of information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2014 at 4:25 PM on which date they must present themselves before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 11.12.2014 positively. Written submissions received later than this date shall not be entertained. A copy of this order be sent to the erstwhile PIO/ADE/RZ, by the present PIO, with the intimation to be present before the Commission on the said date & time.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001968, the Commission finds that the PIO has deliberately provided vague information to the appellant and has not provided any record in support of his reply. Therefore, the Commission directs PIO ADE/RZ to provide specific information on all Points to the appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, latest by 30th December.
Page 7 of 10Further, Show cause notice is issued to the present PIO/ADE/RZ, for not providing correct information to the appellant, despite FAA's order. She is further directed to send a copy of this order to the erstwhile PIO/ADE/RZ, who provided incorrect information to the appellant in response to the RTI application dt. 29.04.2013 and any other official(s) responsible for obstructing the flow of information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2014 at 4:35 PM on which date they must present themselves before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 11.12.2014 positively. Written submissions received later than this date shall not be entertained. A copy of this order be sent to the erstwhile PIO/ADE/RZ, by the present PIO, with the intimation to be present before the Commission on the said date & time.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001969, the Commission directs the respondent to fix a mutually convenient date & time for inspection of relevant files for providing information to the appellant as per RTI dt. 22.04.2013, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The inspection shall be conducted under the supervision of FAA/DC/RZ. A compliance report of the said inspection shall also be sent to the Commission, latest by 30th December, 2014. While providing the information it will be open for the respondents to invoke Section 10 of RTI Act as deem fit. Copies/extracts be provided to the appellant on payment of requisite fee.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002073, the Commission finds that the PIO, initially, informed the appellant that his RTI under the DRTI Act 2001 cannot be treated for want of sufficient fee as the appellant had written RTI Act 2001 instead of RTI Act 2005. The Commission does not find any mala fide on the part of the PIO in this regard. However, after the fact being clarified in the first appeal and the FAA's order to provide information to the appellant, PIO's reply to the appellant vide letter dt. 21.03.2014 was incorrect and misleading.
Therefore, the Commission finds that a revised point-wise reply to the appellant be provided to the appellant, as per provisions of RTI Act, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, latest by 30th December, 2014.
Further, Show cause notice is issued to the present PIO/DDE/RZ, for not providing information to the appellant, despite FAA's order. She is further directed to send a copy of this order to the erstwhile PIO/DDE/RZ, who did not provide information to the appellant in response to the RTI application dt. 29.04.2013 and any other official(s) responsible for obstructing the flow of information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2014 at 4:45 PM on which date they must present themselves before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 11.12.2014 positively. Written submissions received later than this date shall not be entertained. A copy of this order be sent to the erstwhile PIO/DDE/RZ, by the present PIO, with the intimation to be present before the Commission on the said date & time.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002074, the Commission finds that no reply has been provided by the PIO/ADE/RZ, despite the FAA's order. This clearly shows the casual approach of the PIO towards the RTI matters when she has consistently not provided information in compliance of FAA's orders. The appellant has sought for action taken on complaints/representation filed by him and the same has to be provided. A person has a right to know the same.
Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to fix a mutually convenient date & time for inspection of relevant files for providing information to the appellant as per RTI dt. 22.04.2013, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The inspection shall be conducted under the supervision of FAA/DC/RZ. A compliance report of the said inspection shall also be sent to the Commission, Page 8 of 10 latest by 30th December, 2014. While providing the information it will be open for the respondents to invoke Section 10 of RTI Act as deem fit. Copies/extracts be provided to the appellant on payment of requisite fee.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002075, the Commission finds that the no information has been provided by PIO/DDE/RZ. Neither the RTI application was transferred to the Principals of the concerned schools nor was any assistance sought from them to provide information to the appellant. This demonstrates the way in which the PIO/DDE/RZ has tried to evade from her obligation under the Act. Moreover, FAA's order has not been complied with.
Therefore, the Commission directs PIO/DDE/RZ to provide information on all Points directly to the appellant, after seeking assistance from the concerned officials, within four weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, latest by 07th January, 2015.
Further, Show cause notice is issued to the present PIO/DDE/RZ, for not providing information to the appellant, despite FAA's order. She is further directed to send a copy of this order to the erstwhile PIO/DDE/RZ, who did not provide information to the appellant in response to the RTI application dt. 07.04.2014 and any other official(s) responsible for obstructing the flow of information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. PIOs are afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.12.2014 at 4:50 PM on which date they must present themselves before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 11.12.2014 positively. Written submissions received later than this date shall not be entertained. A copy of this order be sent to the erstwhile PIO/DDE/RZ, by the present PIO, with the intimation to be present before the Commission on the said date & time.
As for the request for compensation by the appellant, the same is denied as no case for the same has been made out.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/002343, the Commission directs PIO/DDE/RZ to provide information on all Points directly to the appellant, after seeking assistance from the concerned officials, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, latest by 30th December, 2014, failing which warranted action u/s 20 will be taken.
Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation is directed to take note of the manner in which replies from PIOs, ADE & DDE have been provided for suitable action, as deem fit. Further, Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation is directed to take action regarding publishing names, designations and phone numbers of PIO/FAAs on the official website of the respondent authority. A copy of this order be sent to Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation for perusal and appropriate action.
With these observations, the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(B.D. Harit) Page 9 of 10 Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Page 10 of 10