Central Information Commission
Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000862/18834
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000862
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar
628/3 Shivaji Road, Pul Mithai,
Delhi-110006
Respondent : Mr. Brahmanand Perai
Public Information Officer & AO(IT) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Department of Information Technology 24th Floor, Civic Center, Minto Road, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 12/07/2011 PIO replied : 02/08/2011 First appeal filed on : 19/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2011 Second Appeal received on : 15/03/2012 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Please provide the certified copies of file noting with It contains total no. of pages 7000, you correspondence regarding installation of computer in all can get the same after depositing in the zones & departments of MCD regarding query no. 2 Municipal Treasury of Rs. 14000/- i.e. to 8 @ Rs. 2/- per copy as per RTI Act, 2005.
2. The name of the company to whom the order was placed. It is the part of the e-gov project of MCD managed by M/s Tech Mahendra.
3. The amount of work given to the company, the term & No separate order was placed.
conditions on which the order was placed.
4. The cost of installation of one computer of every zone. As part of implementation of e-gov project.
5. The information of the software in original installed in the Pre-loaded, Window-7, MS office, computer and the cost of the software. Anti-virus, Adobe Reader & etc as part of e-governance project.
6. The information of the software in pirated installed in the No computer and the cost of the software, permission of the competent authority for installing the pirated software in the computer.
7. The photocopy of the bill for installation of the original As part of the e-governance project.
software installed in the computer.
8. The information of the above is required for the civic NA center MCD office & other subordinated officer run under the control of the MCD in Civic Center.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appellant had paid 14000 rupees on 8/8/2011. The appellant was told that the information would be given in 15 working days, since it was large volume. The appeal was disposed off and the PIO was directed to provide the 7000 pages.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information was provided after the order of the FAA. Condonation for late filing of second appeal sought since the Appellant was injured in the High Court Blast on 07/09/2011. He was subsequently hospitalized and had lost a limb. The Commission condones the delay.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Brahmanand Perai, Public Information Officer & AO(IT);
The Appellant had filed his RTI application on 12/07/2011 and the PIO sent a letter on 02/08/2011 informing the Appellant that the information was fairly voluminous and would be about 7000 pages. The Respondent asked the Appellant to pay Rs.14000/- as additional fee for this. On 08/08/2011 the Appellant paid additional fee of Rs.14000/- and on 10/08/2011 the Respondent wrote to the appellant telling him that it would take about 15 working days to give the 7000 pages of photocopies of information. Since 23 days had passed before the letter asking for additional fees was sent it could be argued that the PIO should have provided the information within 07 days of payment of fees. However, considering the fact that the information was voluminous and was 7000 pages the Commission would readily agree that more time would have required by the PIO. However, the PIO did not send the information to the Appellant but on 01/09/2011 he sent a letter asking the Appellant to come and receive the information. In RTI all information is being sent to the Appellants at there house by speed post. The PIO could have sent these by messenger if it was felt appropriate but the act of summoning the appellant to come and receive the information is unexplainable. The Commission asked the PIO to explain reasons for asking the Appellant to come and collect the information. The PIO is not able to give any rationale information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO to ensure that the information is sent to the Appellant before 15 May 2012.
The commission also directs the PIO to ensure that the refund of Rs.14000/- is sent to the Appellant before 30 June 2012. The Commission recommends to the respective Municipal Commissioner to consider recovering Rs.14000/- from the salary of the PIO.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner
09 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Copy to:
The Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi 04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center, New Delhi Page 2 of 2