Central Information Commission
Shaloo Airi vs Mcd on 7 April, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958
Shaloo Airi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Municipal Corporation of
Delhi Office of the Executive
Engineer(M)-I 16, Rajpur
Road, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi - 110054 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.01.2025
Date of Decision : 31.01.2025
Date of SCN Hearing : 11.03.2026
Date of SCN Decision : 06.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.06.2023
PIO replied on : 18.07.2023
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.10.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 15.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"Information Sought under RTI Act.2005 Regarding RR Cut AUDIT Observations CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 1 of 11 I, Shaloo Airi on behalf of my Late husband Late Sh. Rajeev Airi Proprietor of EMINENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY had a meeting with EX. Engg Mr. in his office in the month of December, 2021, We were advised to submit some documents in the department to be sent to the Audit Department to Drop the Audit Paragraphs raised against The said Company of my husband We submitted the required documents Via Diary No. 369 Dt 20/12/2021.
May kindly provide the following information:
1. What action has been taken by the Department regarding the file submitted.
2. What is the stand of Audit Department For dropping the Audit Paragraphs as all the answers were given in detail in the file submitted.
3.Complete movement track of the file and the remarks given at each level."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.07.2023 stating as under:
"1. The information has already been provided to you and all the document have also been provided to you vide letter no. EE(M-I)/CLZ/2023-24/08 dated 04.05.2023.
2&3. As per information no. 1"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide its order dated 23.08.2023, held as under.
"Hearing was fixed for 20.07.23 but postponed for 27.07.23. When it was intimated to the appellant telephonically, she requested to give any other date as she is not available on 27.07.23. So hearing was fixed for 22.08.23. The appellant attended the hearing. The APIO stated that reply to this RTI application has been sent to the appellant vide letter no. EE(M)-I/CLZ/2023- 2024/327 dated 18.07.23. On perusal of the reply, it was found that reply submitted by the PIO is not proper. The PIO is directed to give specific/point wise reply to the appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order as per RTI Act. 2005. The appeal stands disposed off in terms of above observations and orders."
In compliance of FAA's order the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 21.09.2023 to the appellant as under:
"It is submitted that a hearing was made before the First Appellate Authority i.e. SE-I//CLZ on 20.07.2023. During the hearing first appellate authority has directed to provide the amended reply to the applicant. Therefore, it is informed to you that the amended reply is enclosed herewith.CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 2 of 11
Encl. is as under:
All the relevant information has also been provided to you vide letter No. EE(M-1)/CLZ/2023- 24/08 dated 04.05.2023. If you have required any information, you may be visit in the office of EE(M-1)/CLZ on any working day."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 15.01.2025:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, APIO-cum-Assistant Engineer and Shri PC Machiwal, APIO-cum-Assistant Engineer, attended the hearing in person.
The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 31.01.2025:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that no relevant information has been provided to her by the Respondent till date. The reply provided by the PIO vide letter dated 18.07.2023, is evasive and misleading. There is nothing on record which shows that the information has been given to the Appellant on her RTI application. The matter has now reached at the stage of hearing of second appeal and neither any information has been provided by the PIO nor concerned PIO is present to contest the case and has sent two officials to attend the proceedings without any authority letter. The Commission further expresses displeasure against Shri Pradeep Kumar, APIO-cum-Assistant Engineer and Shri PC Machiwal, APIO-cum- Assistant Engineer, for appearing before the Commission completely unprepared and totally unaware of the facts of the instant case. Hence, they are warned on this count and are advised not to repeat the same in future. All of the above shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act, and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed under Section 20 (1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, to Shri Robin Kumar, PIO-cum-Executive Engineer, MCD/CLZ, for neither providing the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant nor participating in the instant hearing. The written submissions of CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 3 of 11 the PIO shall be sent to the Commission within three weeks of the receipt of this order.
If the onus of not providing information lies with the "then PIO", the present PIO shall serve a copy of this decision to the then PIO and the then PIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons. In the meantime, the Commission directs Shri Robin Kumar, PIO-cum-Executive Engineer, MCD/CLZ, to examine the instant RTI Application and provide the requisite information to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the above order, the Appellant contended that the MCD has illegally withheld the amount of Rs. 58 lakhs and more than 21 years had already passed but no payment has been made till date. There is nothing on record from the Respondent which explains the reason to withhold such a huge amount. Therefore, the PIO is further directed to give written explanation as to why a compensation of Rs. 58 lakhs should not be provided to the Appellant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by her at the hands of the Respondent Public Authority.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order and ensure that copy of this order be served to all the concerned PIOs for appropriate action in the matter.
The Registry of this Bench is directed to re-list the matter after four weeks. Fresh notice of hearing will be issued to both the parties."
Show Cause Hearing Relevant Facts emerged during Show-Cause proceedings held on 11.03.2026:
1. The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri K.R. Meena, Executive Engineer (M-I)/PIO, Shri Robin Kumar, Executive Engineer (M-I) and Shri Satish Kumar, Assistant Section Officer, appeared in person.CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 4 of 11
2. The Appellant inter alia submitted that complete and correct information had not been provided by the Respondent Authority. She stated that she is the wife of Late Shri Rajeev Airi, proprietor of M/s Eminent Construction Company, and is legally entitled to pursue the claim relating to the payment of approximately Rs. 58 lakhs, which, according to her, was illegally withheld by the MCD during the lifetime of her late husband.
3. The Appellant further submitted that her late husband was a registered civil contractor with MCD and was carrying on business through the said firm.
In compliance with the directions of the concerned officers of the Engineering Department, he had deposited a sum of approximately Rs. 58 lakhs with MCD (then Division XII, Dhaka) on behalf of M/s Eminent Construction Company and M/s Hi Tech Builders. She emphasized that the said amount was deposited under explicit protest. She further pointed out that several other firms had also been directed to deposit similar amounts with the said division as well as other divisions of MCD pursuant to certain audit objections raised in the year 2002.
4. It was further submitted that the Respondent Authority, vide its order dated 20.12.2010, rejected the claim of M/s Eminent Construction Company, holding that the "recovery deposited/recovered from above firms are justified and after duly recommend by the enquiry committee, hence no amount will be refunded by MCD." The Appellant contended that the settlement of the audit para squarely falls within the domain of the Department, i.e., MCD, and it was never her role, or that of her late husband, to ensure closure of such audit objections. Despite this, she stated that all requisite replies to the audit observations had already been submitted by them. However, the grievance still remains unresolved. Accordingly, the Appellant requested the Commission to intervene appropriately and direct the Respondent Authority to resolve the matter in accordance with law.
5. Shri Robin Kumar, Present PIO/EE (M-I) vide letter dated 28.02.2025 filed a detailed written submission explaining facts of the case and the relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:
"Please refer to subject noted decision of CIC dated 31-1-2025 issued vide CIC file Ne CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 in the matter of Smt. Shaloo Aiari V/s CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 5 of 11 PIO/EE(M)-1, CLZ, MCD, vide which Commission has directed undersigned to serve a copy of this decision to the then PIO and the then PIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act., and why maximum penalty should not be imposed under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, to the present PIO for neither providing the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI application to the appellant nor participating in the instant hearing. The written submissions of the PIO shall be sent to the Commission within 03 weeks of the receipt of requisite information to the appellant, within 02 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In this context, information being sought by the appellant through RTI application under reference is submitted as under:-
1. As per record, no action is found taken on the file submitted by the appellant on 20.12.2021 vide Dy. No. 369.
2. As per record of this office, Audit Para concerned to the payment to M/s. Eminent Construction Co. has not been finalized till date.
3. As per record of this office, file submitted by Smt. Shaloo Airi as stated at (1) above, has not been sent to the any other office of the MCD."
Apart from above, the then PIO, and present PIO i.e. undersigned has been served show cause through subject noted decision of the CIC. Brief facts of the explanation of present PIO i.e. undersigned is very humbly submitted as under:
1. That, I Robin Kumar Joined the post of Ex. Engineer(M-I), in Civil Lines Zone on 05.11.2024.
2. RTI application was submitted on 15.06.2023 (offline)/18.05.2023 (online)
3. RTI replied by the office of EE(M-1), CLZ on 18.07.2023
4. First Appeal held on 22.08.2023
5. Decision/direction of FAA/SE-1, CLZ on 23.08.2023
6. Reply provide by EE(M-I)/CLZ, on 21.09.2023 against the directions of FAA/SE-1/CLZ
7. Notice of CIC dated 30.12.2024 for hearing on 15.2025 in the CIC.CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 6 of 11
8. Decision of CIC dated 31.01.2025 It is also clarified that undersigned has written letters to the then PIO/EE(M-
1)/CLZ, to the concerned AE/APIO posted in this office at the time of RTI application, and to the concerned Accountant and Cashier being custodian of the record, posted in this office at the time of RTI application to offer their comments/explanation as sought by the CIC through subject noted decision. As soon comments/explanation of the said staff is received CIC will be apprised accordingly.
Reply of RTI application, and reply against the directions of FAA/SE-I, CLZ both were provided on 18.07.2023, and on 21.09.2023 respectively well before my joining in the year 2024. It is further clarified that undersigned could not attend the hearing in the CIC scheduled for 15.01.2025 due to election duty as Zonal Election Officer which is evident from meeting notice dated 12.01.2025 from Returning Officer held on 13.01.2025 for the preparation of Delhi Legislative Election 2025.
It is also stated that a decision was taken in the meeting which was held in the Chamber of Chief Engineer, CLZ on 26.07.2022, that the case for releasing the pending payment shall be processed after settlement of Audit Para and Final Outcome of a FIR No. RC-ST(A)/2003/DLI/U/120B-1/PCR/W/12(1)(d) of IPC Act. 1988, registered with CBI Relevant pages, available in concerned file i.e. page 6/N, 9/N, and 14/N in this regard are enclosed herewith for perusal of the CIC.
Above submissions are submitted for consideration and to withdraw show cause notice issued against the undersigned.
6. The Respondent PIO, Shri K R Meena, while defending the case inter alia submitted that he has filed detailed written submission dated 10.03.2026 explaining the facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, the relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:
"The present reply is submitted in compliance with the Show Cause Notice issued pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Commission.CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 7 of 11
At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the information sought by the applicant through RTI application dated 15.06.2023 relates to Documents submitted by applicant vide diary No. 369 dated 20.12.2021 were received in this office and placed on the concerned file for examination. In this regard certain information were provided to her vide dated 4.05.2023, 21.09.2023 and 28.2.2025 (Copy enclosed).
In this regard avail record has been re-examined and found that, the matter had been examined earlier by the competent authority under order of the Hon'ble High Court in CCP 1532-37/2006 and, after affording opportunity to the concerned contractors including M/s Eminent Construction Company, a speaking order dated 20.12.2010 was passed by the competent authority upholding the recovery on the basis of deficiencies in the work executed and rejecting the claim of the contractors. The copy of order dated 20.12.2010 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.
The RTI application filed by the applicant sought information regarding the action taken on documents submitted by her. In this regard it is submitted that under signed has have prepared a fresh reply on the basis of available record and same has been sent to her. Copy of fresh reply is enclosed herewith as Annexure A-2.
Further, a copy of the SCN issued by the Hon'ble Commission has also been sent to the then PIO Sh. Robin Singh for his explanation. The copy of reply is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3.
Further, a civil Suit CS (COMM) no. 696/2025 titled as Shaloo Airi and Ors vs MCD is also filed by her in which reply has been filed by the Department in which DOH is 11.03.2026. Copy enclosed.
The respondent had acted in good faith and had provided the information available on record. There was neither any intention to withhold information nor any mala fide attempt to obstruct the provisions of the RTI Act.
If any clarification remained to be explained during the hearing before the Hon'ble Commission, the same was due to the complexity and age of the records relating to the matter and not due to any deliberate lapse.
It is respectfully submitted that the conditions required for invoking penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, namely deliberate refusal to provide information or mala fide denial, are not attracted in the present case.
PRAYER CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 8 of 11 In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to:
a). Accept the explanation submitted by the respondent;
b) Hold that there was no mala fide denial of information;
c) Drop the proposed penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act;
d) Pass any other order deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
7. The Respondent PIO, Shri K. R. Meena, submitted that he has also provided revised reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 10.03.2026 stating as under:
"Please refer to your RTI application dated 15.06.2023 and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958.
In compliance with the said directions and based on the records available in this office the information is provided as under.
Documents submitted by you vide diary No. 369 dated 20.12.2021 were received in this office and placed on the concerned file for examination. In this regard certain information were provided to you vide dated 4.05.2023, 21.09.2023 and 28.2.2025 (Copy enclosed).
In this regard avail record has been re-examined and found that, the matter had been examined earlier by the competent authority under order of the Hon'ble High Court in CCP 1532-37/2006 and, after affording opportunity to the concerned contractors including M/s Eminent Construction Company, a speaking order dated 20.12.2010 was passed by the competent authority upholding the recovery on the basis of deficiencies in the work executed and rejecting the claim of the contractors. The copy of order dated 20.12.2010, is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1.
No further action is required on behalf of the department in this case and as per record no further action is taken on the documents submitted by the you.
Further, as you must aware that a civil Suit CS (COMM) no. 696/2025 titled as Shaloo Airi and Ors vs MCD is also filed by you in which reply has been filed by the Department DOH is 11.03.2026.CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 9 of 11
If you desire you may inspect the complete available record relating to the matter in the office of the undersigned on any working day between 11 AM and 4 PM with prior appointment.
The above information is provided as per the records available in this office."
Decision in respect of Show-Cause proceedings:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties during the show-cause proceedings and perusing the material available on record, notes that the present PIO as well as the concerned officers have furnished detailed written explanations and have also provided a revised and comprehensive reply dated 10.03.2026 to the Appellant, clarifying the status of the documents submitted vide diary No. 369 dated 20.12.2021 and enclosing the speaking order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the competent authority.
9. The Commission further observes that the present PIO, Shri K. R. Meena, has satisfactorily explained that the earlier lapse in furnishing a proper reply pertained to old and complex records and that he has since revisited the available records and ensured compliance of the Commission's directions. It is also noted that Shri Robin Kumar had joined the office only on 05.11.2024, i.e. much after the filing of original RTI application and furnishing of the initial replies dated 18.07.2023 and 21.09.2023, in which he had no role and has placed on record reasonable grounds for his non-appearance in the earlier hearing due to election duty.
10. In view of the explanations tendered, the subsequent compliance made by furnishing a revised point-wise reply, and the absence of any material establishing deliberate or mala fide denial of information, the Commission is satisfied that the ingredients necessary for invoking the penal provisions under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act are not attracted in the present matter. Accordingly, the show-cause notice issued against the concerned PIO(s) is hereby dropped.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 10 of 1111. As regards the proposed compensation proceedings, the Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant has been provided to her and there is no financial injury suffered by her due to non-furnishing of information by the Respondent PIO. In fact, the Respondent offered inspection of available records to her several times. Now, the Appellant's grievance concerning release of the withheld amount of approximately Rs. 58 lakhs and the legality of the recovery is already the subject matter of separate judicial/civil proceedings, including CS (COMM) No. 696/2025, which involves adjudication of substantive contractual and civil rights, falling outside the limited scope of the RTI Act. Since the RTI jurisdiction is confined to access to information and not adjudication of monetary claims, the proposed compensation notice is also dropped.
12. Accordingly, the show-cause proceedings as well as the compensation notice stand dropped and the matter is closed.
The matter stands closed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of the Superintending Engineer-I, 16, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi - 110054 CIC/MCDND/A/2023/141958 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)