Central Information Commission
Mr.Vikrant Kumar Tongad vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 2 July, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No.4, Club Building,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel No: 011 26106140
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000896/03829
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000896
Dated: 02.07.2013
Appellant: Shri Vikrant Kumar Tongad
Bhanouta, Post Khedi
Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar
Greater Noida, U.P. 203207
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane
Land & Development Office
Barakhamba Road
New Delhi110001
Date of Hearing: 02.07.2013
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 09.06.2011 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding total number of stations, length of the line, wide of the track, details of water harvesting method, details of felling of the trees, etc. Copy of the CPIO reply is not enclosed. Appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA). FAA provided the information sought by the appellant. Appellant filed this present second appeal.
Hearing
2. Respondent was present before the Commission.
3. Respondent referred to the RTI application of the appellant and stated that appellant was seeking information regarding total number of stations, length of the line, wide of the track, details of water harvesting method, details of felling of the trees, etc.
4. Respondent stated that the main focus of the appellant was as follows:
(i) details of water harvesting system;
(ii) wide of the track; and
(iii) details regarding felling of the trees.
5. Respondent stated that they have provided the information on all the points. Respondent stated that they had provided the stations where water harvesting devices have been installed.
Respondent stated that they had also provided all the dimension of the gadgets pertaining to the wide of the metro railway track. Respondent stated that regarding felling of the tress they had taken permission from the forest department and the terms and conditions had been complied with.
6. Respondent sated that all the details are available on the website of the respondent organization. No further information was to be given to the appellant.
7. Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision
8. No further intervention is required in the matter at the level of the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(V.K. Sharma) DO & Deputy Registrar