Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Tyagi vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Hq on 5 July, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/175442
CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/169289
CIC/NDMCP/A/2017/183481
CIC/NDMCP/A/2017/183482
CIC/NDMCC/A/2017/175443
CIC/NDMCP/A/2018/102222
CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/611363
CIC/NDMCL/A/2018/615116
Shri Amit Kumar Tyagi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/EE(E&M-II)/Civil, NDMC, Timarpur, Delhi ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner (HQ), NDMC,
Minto Road, New Delhi
PIO/EE(Elect)/CLZ, NDMC, Rajpur Road,
Civil Line,New Delhi
PIO/EE(Elect-I)/City SP Zone,
NDMC, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
PIO/EE(E&M-II), O/o Supdt. Engineer
(E&M), NDMC, Jhandewalan, Delhi
PIO/Supdt. Engineer (Elect-I), NDMC,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
PIO/EE(Elect), KB Zone, NDMC, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
PIO/Asst. Accounts Officer/CLZNDMC,
Civil Line, Rajpur Road, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Controller of Accounts,NDMC,
Minto Road, New Delhi
Through: Sh. R K Mehta-SE; Sh. Bharat Singh -
EE(E); Sh. M S Rawat- Accounts Officer
Page 1 of 8
Date of Hearing : 01.07.2019
Date of Decision : 05.07.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
175442 19.07.2017 Nil 08.09.2017 Nil
169289 19.07.2017 05.09.2017 07.09.2017 19.09.2017
183481 06.10.2017 21.11.2017 08.11.2017 28.11.2017
183482 06.10.2017 21.11.2017 08.11.2017 28.11.2017
175443 19.07.2017 Nil 08.09.2017 Nil
102222 27.10.2017 19.12.2017 05.10.2017 20.12.2017
611363 27.10.2017 08.01.2018 08.12.2017 18.12.2017
615116 24.10.2017 Nil 22.01.2018 Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/175442 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2017, seeking information regarding action taken on his various letters with regard to Tender No. 132644, NIT No. 5/11 dated 15.07.2011 & sought the following information:
1. Action taken report on above said letters.
2. Provide status of Security Deposit for the above said work.
3. Provide reasons for not issuing work order for the above.
4. Provide copy of file history and NIT approval for the above work. Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.09.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission.
CIC/NDMCC/A/2017/175443 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2017, seeking information regarding action taken on his various letters with regard to Tender No. 256327, NIT No. TC/EE(E&M)/NDMC/Engg./2015-16/6.3 & sought the following information.
1. Action taken report on above said letters.
2. Provide status of Security Deposit for the above said work.
3. Provide reasons for not issuing work order for the above.
4. Provide details of provision of Submersible at the above said office at present.
Page 2 of 8Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.09.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Submission dated 14.06.2019 has been received from the PIO/Asst. Municipal Secretary.
Submission dated 10.06.2019 has been received from SO/APIO(HQ), NDMC.
Appellant states that he had emerged successful as L1 bidder during the process of bidding in a tender issued by the respondent. In terms of the bid, certain sum was deposited as earnest money. When the job was not allocated to him, he sought refund of the earnest money. However, neither work order was issued nor his earnest money was refunded and consequently, he was forced to file the RTI application seeking the above information for unpaid dues.
Respondent/SE- Sh. R K Mehta present during hearing states that the matter has been transferred to EE, EMS, SDMC. He further submitted that the delay which has occurred in this matter in responding and even in the refund of the amount, is because of the trifurcation of the MCD, the division of jurisdiction, transfer/retirement of officials and other such administrative issues. During the course of hearing, Sh. R K Mehta - PIO/Respondent further affirmed that the appellant should submit a specific application in a particular format for seeking refund of the earnest money. They are ready and willing to refund the earnest amount. A copy of the appellant's application alongwith Form No. G 8 dated 14.05.2019 is provided during the hearing to the PIO and PIO has undertaken to ensure that the earnest money is refunded within a month.
Decision Deliberations during the hearing indicate that the Respondent has been adopting dilatory tactics on the pretext of trifurcation of the MCD and that the officers who had allocated the job to the appellant had been transferred or retired. In the given circumstances, wherein it is evident that the appellant has been made to suffer financial loss due to non-refund of earnest money, for no fault of his.
Based on the above position, the Commission hereby directs the respondent - Sh. R K Mehta - SE, E&M to ensure that appropriate action is taken by the respondent for refund of the earnest money deposited by the appellant and submit a copy of the action taken report upon resolution of the case at hand, within three weeks of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.Page 3 of 8
CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/169289 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2017, seeking information regarding action taken on his various letters with regard to Tender No. 240440, NIT No. TC/EEE-II/2014-15/47-11 & sought the following information.
1. Action taken report on above said letters.
2. Provide status of Security Deposit for the above said work.
3. Provide reasons for not issuing work order for the above.
4. Provide name of the firm that carried the electric works (Wiring) in the above flats.
PIO/Exe. Engineer (Elect.-II), Civil Line Zone letter dated 05.09.2017provided point wise information to the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 07.09.2017. FAA vide order dated 19.09.2017 upheld the reply of PIO and satisfied satisfaction of the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Two submissions dated 21.06.2019 has been received from the Executive Engineer (Elect.-II), Civil Line.
Submission dated 10.06.2019 has been received from SO/APIO(QH), NDMC.
Facts emerging during hearing:
Appellant states that FAA had wrongly recorded his satisfaction in the order passed during hearing of the First Appeal. The instant case originates from the appellant emerging successful in a bidding process and work having been allocated to him. The Appellant states that the job assigned to him had been completed in 2014-15, on the respondent's assurance that upon budget allocation, his dues will be paid and the work order shall also be issued accordingly. However, neither work order was issued nor his payment released and consequently, he was forced to file the RTI application seeking the above information for his unpaid dues, for the work already done by him at the request of the respondent. Respondent has been adopting dilatory tactics on the pretext of trifurcation of the MCD and that the officers who had allocated the job to the appellant had been transferred or retired. Respondent has placed some submissions dated 21.06.2019 on record providing cursory replies.
Decision After hearing contentions of the parties and perusal of records, the Commission hereby directs that Sh. Bharat Singh- EE(Electrical)/PIO shall furnish a revised reply against the queries of the appellant and also clarify/affirm whether it has been verified that the job was allocated to the Page 4 of 8 appellant and the said work has been duly done by the appellant. This revised reply shall be submitted by the respondent before the Commission by 29.07.2019, with a copy served upon the appellant in advance.
The instant appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
CIC/NDMCP/A/2017/183481 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2017, seeking information on eleven points with regard to work order no. 26 dated 18.03.2016 & sought the copy of bill demand, time taken by the department for payment of bill, action to be taken by the department in the case of non availability of budget and other related information.
PIO/EE(Elect) City SP Zone, vide letter dated 21.11.2017, provided point wise information to the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.11.2017. FAA vide order 28.11.2017 upheld the reply of PIO.
CIC/NDMCP/A/2017/183482 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2017, seeking information on nine points with regard to work order no. 36 dated 24.11.2015 & sought the copy of bill alongwith demand number, time taken by the department for processing and payment of bill, action to be taken by the department to remedy the non-availability of budget and other related information.
PIO/EE(Elect) City SP Zone, vide letter dated 21.11.2017, provided point wise information to the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.11.2017. FAA vide order 28.11.2017 upheld the reply of PIO.
Facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing and reiterate their respective submissions as are evident from the above mentioned records.
Decision Considering that the nature of queries in both the aforesaid appeals is similar, they are clubbed for the purpose of adjudication. From the averments of the parties during the course of hearing, it has transpired that both the cases relate to jobs performed by the appellant for the Electrical Department, for which he has not been remunerated. The appellant had filed the above RTI applications two years back and he was informed that his outstanding bills will be released subject to availability of budget.Page 5 of 8
Under the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that in order to redress the appellant's grievance, it is deemed expedient that the matter be remanded to SE, Electrical, North DMC- Sh. Santosh Kumar. An action taken report shall be submitted before the Commission upon adjudication of the issues raised by the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Non-compliance notice/s shall be issued by the Registry in the event of violation of these directions.
The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
CIC/NDMCP/A/2018/102222 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2017, seeking information on 14 points regarding deletion of Contractor Vendor L-1 list and sought the following information.
1. What is the work deletion process in practice for Contractor Vendor L-1 list?
2. Provide a list of allied officers in the commission set up for the above work.
3. Inform the scheduled time for the meeting of the above commission and other related information.
PIO/EE(Elect-I), vide letter dated 19.12.2017, provided point wise information to the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 05.12.2017. FAA vide order 20.12.2017 directed the PIO/EE(S), City SP Zone to provide complete information on points 2-14. In compliance of the FAA order, PIO furnished complete information vide letter dated 23.12.2017.
Still dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing. Appellant stated that he wishes to withdraw the instant case, since the procedure about which information was sought has become defunct now.
Decision The instant appeal is withdrawnas infructuous.
CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/611363 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2017, seeking information on 14 points regarding deletion of Contractor Vendor L-1 list and sought the following information.
1. What is the work deletion process in practice for Contractor Vendor L-1 list?Page 6 of 8
2. Provide a list of allied officers in the commission set up for the above work.
3. Inform the scheduled time for the meeting of the above commission and other related information.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.12.2017. FAA vide order 18.12.2017upheld the reply of PIO.
PIO/EE(Elect), vide letter dated 08.01.2018, stated that there is no provision to answer question under RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present during hearing and reiterate their respective submissions as are evident from the abovementioned records. The response dated 08.01.2018 sent by the PIO is set aside since it is baseless and is devoid of legal sanction. The queries raised by the appellant merit response and information, in terms of the RTI Act. Thus the order passed by the then FAA on 18.01.2018, is demonstrative of complete lack of application of mind by the Appellate Authority.
Decision Considering the nature of queries, it appears that both the above cases relate to jobs performed by the appellant for the Electrical Department. It is also noted that responses of the PIO and of the FAA are legally incorrect. Hence both are set aside and the instant appeal is remanded to SE, Electrical, North DMC- Sh. Santosh Kumar, to adjudicate the appeal afresh, upon hearing both the parties and address each of the queries raised by the appellant, deciding the same with a reasoned speaking order. An action taken report shall be submitted before the Commission upon adjudication of the issues raised by the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Non-compliance notice/s shall be issued by the Registry in the event of violation of these directions.
The instant appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
CIC/NDMCL/A/2018/615116 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.10.2017, seeking information on five points, as follows:
1. Provide information about departmental process and time taken to refund EMD & Security Money to registered contractors on completion of work.
2. Provide information on duties of the firm to claim refund of EMD & Security Money on completion of work.
3. Can Executive Engineer invite tenders without availability of budget? Etc. Page 7 of 8 Having not received any reply of the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.01.218 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent present states that the matter did not reach them initially and subsequently, concerned PIO had provided some reply vide letter dated
09.01.2018.
Respondent states that the appellant should have filed an application with an affidavit alongwith copy of Form G8 to obtain the refund, like in the case no. CIC/NDMCC/A/2017/175443.
Decision It is noted form the averments of the parties that information as sought by the appellant has been provided now. The appellant is still dissatisfied because though information has been received by him, yet his grievance is yet to be redressed. Since the jurisdiction under the RTI Act is well defined within the precincts of supply of information from public records, there appears no more cause of action left in this case.
The instant appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 8 of 8