Central Information Commission
Mr.Shah Nawaz Khan vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001499/13542
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001499
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shah Nawaz Khan
General Secretary
Zafarbad, Chauhan banger R.W.A
Correspondence Address
Ch. No. Y-78,Civil Side
Tis HAzari Court,Delhi
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mittal
PIO & SE-I (Sh. North), Municipal Corporation of Delhi Zonal Office Building, Shahdara North Zone, Welcome, Keshav Chowk, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 08/09/2010 PIO replied on : 10/10/2010 First Appeal filed on : 09/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order on : 09/03/2011 Second Appeal received on : 03/06/2011 Information Sought:
1.Please state the number of times the repairs(both minor and major) have been carried out on each roads and street at near main road, Brahampuri, Gali no.10 and 11.For each repair work, please furnish the following list to the appellant:
a)length of road repaired h)composition of repair b)exact location of spot i)Actual date of start c)Kind of work j)Actual date of completion d)work order no. k)amount paid or payable e)length of repair l)status of work f)average width of repair m)name of the contractor g)method of repair n)mode of improvement
2.Please provide the copy of the relevant portion of stock register and labour register ,if the work was done through departmentally.
3.Please provide the copy of the contract and other document outlining terms and conditions, copy of the measurement book, copy of sketch, copy of details of estimates, name of the Assistant Engineer who inspected the work, portion of work inspected by them and whether there was any guarantee clause in the contract, if the work was done through a contractor.
4.Please provide the Appellant with 3 separate date and time for the inspection of the prepared information by the department.
5.Please furnish specific reason for the bad condition of each of these roads and galies separately.Page 1 of 3
6.Please intimate the road/gali whether it is broken due to wrong camber or clogged drains.
7.Please state the reason if it is due to wrong camber.
8.Please state what action is due against the Engineer, who inspected the road.
9.Please provide information from the concerned department which dealt with the dates when drains were cleaned and copy of measurement, name of the official who inspected and action due against them.
10.Information regarding material used in the road. Whether the respondent has made any enquiry to ascertain th equality of road and furnish report of it, whether any responsibility have been fixed and date of start and completion of enquiry.
11.Please state what enquiries are due against the engineers who passed payments and did faulty inspection.
12.Please provide the appellants with the sample of material used in the road.
13.When will these roads be repaired now?
14.Please provide the name of the contractor, who has worked during the said period.
Whether the name of the respondent is Rishi Pal, who was given the contract but on what basis and at whose instance it was given.
PIO Reply:
1.It was submitted that the voluminous reply have been sought about works executed in Chauhan Banger area. It has been transferred to this division in May 2010 and previously the area was in E.E-[M Shah(N)-
1.The Appellant is requested to attend office of E.E-[M Shah(N)[-II on any working day for inspection of record and photocopies of the same enclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information furnished by the PIO within stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Mr. Sriniwas, AE(M-II) was present at the hearing. The FAA directed the PIO to provide the clarification in respect of the points raised in the PIO within 10 days and also provide an opportunity of inspection to the Appellant within the period of two weeks. Appeal disposed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO was false and frivolous.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Shah Nawaz Khan;
Respondent : Mr. P. V. Singh, EE(M-II) on behalf of Mr. A. K. Mittal, PIO & SE-I (Sh. North);
The Appellant states that Mr. Sriniwas, AE(M-II) asked the Appellant to come to the office on 15/03/2011 at 02.00PM. He states that he went to the office and found that Mr. Sriniwas was not present and nobody knew about his whereabouts. He tried to contact Mr. Sriniwas subsequently but could not contact him. The Appellant states he wants the complete information sought by him in terms of attested photocopies for the period February 2010 of any repairs carried out. He would also like to inspect the records for the period from January 2005 to June 2010 on 30 July 2011 from 11.00AM onwards.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 30 July 2011 from 11.00AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. P. V. Singh to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 30 July 2011 from 11.00AM onwards. He will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages. Mr. P. V. Singh will also give attested photocopies of all the records from January 2005 to June 2010 to the Appellant on 30 July 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Sriniwas, AE(M-II) within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Sriniwas, AE(M-II) & Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 17 August 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 19 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SB) Copy through Mr. P. V. Singh, EE(M-II) to:
1- Mr. Sriniwas, AE(M-II);
Page 3 of 3