Central Information Commission
Mr.Satya Prakash Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 10 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000577/12329
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000577
Appellant : Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta
A-71, Shastri Nagar
Delhi - 110052
Respondent : Deemed PIO & EE(M-I)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the EE(M-I) Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone Idgah Road, Delhi RTI application filed on : 26/09/2010 PIO replied : 12/10/2010 First Appeal filed on : 17/02/2011 FAA's Order : 18/01/2011 Hearing Notice Issued on : 06/04/2011 Date of Hearing : 10/05/2011 Information Sought:-
The appellant wants the following information:-
1) Provide the information of Ward no. 90, Model Basti, Delhi for dated 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008, 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2009, 01/04/2009 to 20/09/2010 about the road construction, drainage side brum, c.c.
etc. How many tenders were made, how many work orders were issued, how many work orders were cancelled. How much amount was spent on this? Provide the photocopy of all the tenders and work orders.
2) Provide the complete details of the builders with whom contract was made their name, firm's name. and how much was paid for the same and on which date and also provide the cheque no. through which the payment was made.
3) Provide the complete work statement of the work done in view of 1).
4) Provide the copy of the complete details of the work stools of the work done in view of 1).
5) Provide the copy of the M.B. in view of 1).
6) Provide the detail about the under whom the whole work was done. And whether the work was investigated under any laboratory?
7) Whether any complaints regarding the from dated 01/04/2007 to 20/09/2010 were made. If yes, what action was taken against the same. Provide the action taken report for the same.
8) Provide the information about the JE and AE who were appointed during the period 01/04/2005 to 20/09/2010.
Reply from the PIO:
The appellant was asked to visit the office on any working day and have the information after depositing the fees thereof, in view to all queries.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The appellant was provided with incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by PIO. FAA's Order:-
Vide reply issued the appellant was offered an inspection. However, appellant states that he does not wish to avail the option of inspecting record, even though the same is voluminous.
Hence PIO/EE(M)-I/SPZ may supply the record however, voluminous on payment of due charge which may be intimated to him (No. of pages/amount of charges) within 05 working days.
Hence, Appeal No.831/DC/SPZ stands disposed off.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided even after the order of the FAA. The FAA had directed to provide complete information with photocopies within 05 working days.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the Appellant had clear stated that he did not want to inspect the records but wanted photocopies of the records. The PIO did not give any estimate of the additional fees to be paid by the Appellant as required under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) appears to have directed the PIO/EE(M-I) to intimate the amount of fees to be deposited by the Appellant to get the information within 05 days. As per the second appeal filed by the Appellant it appears that the PIO did not tell the Appellant how much additional fee was to be paid.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO/EE(M-I) is directed to provide the complete information free of cost to the Appellant before 30 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO/EE(M-I) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO/EE(M-I) 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. 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.
The PIO/EE(M-I) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 03 June 2011 at
02.30pm 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 10 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)