Central Information Commission
Girish Kargeti vs Delhi Jal Board on 25 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DELJB/C/2024/120138
Girish Kargeti ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
Public Information Officer,
Executive Engineer-(M-45),
Delhi Jal Board (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
Opp. J-Block Market, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
PIO under RTI,
Executive Engineer-(E&M)/
M-11, Delhi Jal Board (GNCTD),
D-Block, Saket, New Delhi-110017. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 20.11.2025
Date of Decision : 25.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.11.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on Record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.06.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
1. Kindly provide the list of total Numbers of operational Tube Wells in the Ward 158 with locations of these tube wells in Mohalla/colony wise.Page 1 of 5
2. Kindly provide the names of operators engaged by the DJB, New Delhi of these operational Tubewell?
3. Kindly provide the certified copy of M.O.U. through which Delhi Jal Board has transferred the power to operate various tube wells in Delhi to ensure water supply in various colonies.
4. Is there any tube-well in Bhati mine ward no 158 where unauthorized operators are operating tube wells without the authority of DJB? If so, provide the list of such tubewells.
5. Kindly provide the guideline/s of appointed operators for providing safe and clean drinking water from Tube wells?
6. Kindly provide the details of operator for providing drinking water in "Asola Housing Complex" Asola Extension, New Delhi-110074?
7. Kindly provide the existing layout map of DJB pipeline (4 inch) in the "Asola Housing Complex" Asola Extension, New Delhi-110074?
8. Can a private operator/s operate such operation without official assignment by the DJB, New Delhi?
9. Kindly allow me the inspection of relevant files of abovesaid subject matter u/s 2(j) of RTI Act 2005.
2. The response of CPIO reply, copy of first appeal and its order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Meena, Junior Engineer (E&M) present in person.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.06.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
5. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"This is with reference to the communication received from your office regarding the delay in providing the reply to the RTI application filed by the applicant.
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the delay occurred due to the various restructuring and reorganization of divisions within the department.Page 2 of 5
During this transition period, the copy of the RTI application was not received in this office, and therefore the matter could not be processed in time.
The matter came to the notice of the undersigned only upon receipt of the copy of the RTI application from the Hon'ble Commission. The current Public Information Officer (PIO) immediately examined the matter and furnished the RTI reply to the applicant without any delay once the application was received.
It is further submitted that the delay was unintentional and occurred solely due to administrative restructuring and non-receipt of the RTI application in this office within the time limit.
In view of the above facts, it is requested that the explanation may kindly be considered favourably and the matter may be disposed of accordingly."
6. Reply dated 10.11.2025 of the Respondent is taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Point No. 01:-The list of total nos. of operational tube wells in the ward no. 158 along with its location is enclosed.
Point No. 02, 04, 05, 06 & 08:-The tube wells are operational through an automation system with no manual intervention.
Point No. 03 & 07: Does not pertains to the division of EE(E&M)M-12."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that now at this stage, they have provided point-wise reply/information to the Complainant vide letter dated 10.11.2025.
Decision:
8. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information from the PIO as per the RTI Act. The Respondent contended that now at the stage of Complaint, they have provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Complainant vide letter dated 10.11.2025. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent was unable to explain the reason for absence of Shri Piyush Gupta, PIO. Further, there is a delay in providing reply to the Complainant on his RTI application. The Respondent contended that due to restructuring and reorganization in the department, the RTI application of the Complainant was not received in Page 3 of 5 their office/division. The Commission observes that there was a delay in providing reply due to internal mismanagement within the Public Authority.
9. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
10. The Public Authority is advised to re-examine the methodology by which the RTI applications are dealt with in their office and evolve a robust mechanism for quick disposal of RTI matters in letter and spirit respecting the provisions of RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, RTI Cell, Executive Engineer (M)-45, Delhi Jal Board, Opp. J Block Market, Saket, New Delhi - 110017.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)