Central Information Commission
Praveen Chauhan vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation Head ... on 5 March, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCQ/A/2017/137578
CIC/SDMCQ/A/2017/137575
Shri Praveen Chauhan
Delhi-110033. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO, NodalOfficer-(Horticulture)/HQ., ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
SouthDelhi MunicipalCorporation,
HorticultureDepartment/HQ
Through:
Shri P.K. Banerjee, PIO/Dy. Director
Shri S.P. Meena, DDH/West Zone
Shri Sube Singh, ADH/ South Zone
Date of Hearing : 01.03.2019
Date of Decision : 01.03.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.01.2017; 13.01.2017
PIO replied on : Nil ; 31.01.2017
First Appeal filed on : 23.02.2017; 23.02.2017
First Appellate Order on : 07.04.2017; 07.04.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.06.2017; 01.06.2017
Since the parties involved in the captioned appeals are same, the appeals
are clubbed together for hearing and adjudication to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
CIC/SDMCQ/A/2017/137578
Page 1 of 3
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant vide RTI application dated 19.08.2016, sought information on four points relating to sanction of civil works in SDMC Zone. The appellant sought details of all work contracts upto the value of Rs. One Lac awarded, by Horticulture Department of SDMC for financial year 2016-17.Having not received any response from CPIO, the Appellant filed first appeal dated 23.02.2017. The FAA/Director (Hort.)/SDMC vide order dated 07.04.2017directed the PIO to provide revised reply to the RTI application as per record to the appellant within 10 working 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:
The appellant was absent despite service of notice of hearing. The respondent was present. At the outset, the PIO submitted that the record sought by the appellant being voluminous, copies of records were not furnished. The appellant was called upon to inspect the relevant records vide reply dated
02.03.2017. A copy of the reply dated 02.03.2017 was placed on record by the respondent.The PIO contended that an opportunity of inspection was granted but appellant never availed the same.
Decision:
After hearing the respondent and perusal of record, the Commission finds the decision of FAA not in consonance with RTI Act. The FAA did not take in account the vast scope of queries while adjudicating the first appeal and directed furnishing of copies, which would have invariably caused disproportionate diversion of resources of the public authority. In such situations, it is reasonable for the PIO to require the appellant to inspect the record and then demand copies of relevant record or pages. Hence, the decision of PIO dated 02.03.2017 was correct. The decision of FAA is set aside.
The appeal is disposed off.
CIC/SDMCQ/A/2017/137575 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant vide RTI application dated 12.01.2017 sought information on six points alleging corruption in the Horticulture Department of SDMC on the issue of construction of Gazeboin various parks. The PIO(Hort.)/HQ/SDMC vide letter Page 2 of 3 dated 31.01.2017 transferred the RTI application to the concerned zones under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed first appeal dated 23.02.2017. The FAA/Director (Hort.)/SDMC vide order dated 07.04.2017directed the PIO to provide revised reply to the RTI application as per record to appellant within 10 working 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:
The appellant was absent despite service of notice of hearing. The respondent was present. It was submitted by the respondent that revised reply dated 02.06.2017 was furnished to the appellant in compliance of the FAO. A copy of the same is placed on record. The respondent feigned ignorance about the reason of dissatisfaction of the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission notes that the second appeal was presented for registration on 01.06.2017 whereas, the revised reply of PIO bears a subsequent date i.e. 02.06.2017. Had the PIO furnished the revised reply earlier, the appellant may not have chosen to prefer the present appeal. Be that as it may, the appellant chose to remain absent from hearing and did not submit any written submission. The Commission finds that the reply dated 02.06.2017 addresses all the queries of the appellant. No further adjudication is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed off.
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 Page 3 of 3