Central Information Commission
Mr.Pankaj Arora vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 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/2011/001156/12950Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001156
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Arora,
Plot No. 8, Opp. State Bank India,
Khureji Khas,
New Delhi - 110051
Respondent (1) : Mr. R. Prasad
Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of Superintending Engineer, Civil Line Zone, 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi-54 (2) : Mr. Kishan Kumar, AE(M-II) & Deemed PIO;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of Superintending Engineer, Civil Line Zone, 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi-54 (3) : Mr. S.N. Hassan, Deemed PIO & the then EE(M-II) presently EE(Project), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Civil Lines Zone, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 12/01/2011 PIO replied : 11/02/2011 First appeal filed on : 17/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 22/02/2011 Second Appeal received on : 27/04/2011 S. Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO 1. How many tenders were awarded to various The information asked for is
construction companies/ firms/contractors for ward no. voluminous in nature you are C-11, MVID, RBTB, Staff Quarters Rajpur Road in the therefore requested to inspect the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-2010? Please specify record on -------------with prior the details of tenders along with drawings, estimated information of the office. cost, tender amount and how many extra items included?
2. Who prepared the respective tenders for the aforesaid Tenders are not prepared for any locations? location.
3. Please provide the information about the up gradation The information asked for is not of the road and redevelopment of the drainage system specific. You are, therefore, and road and construction of boundary walls in various requested to inspect the record on sites as aforesaid? ----------- with prior information to the office.
Page 1 of 44. Who authorized the contractor to use malba for other The information asked for is not building material to dump in the filling up the road? specific, therefore cannot reply.
5. Whether quality of goods/material used in the In all the works executed by the construction of the said construction work (as per the contractor, the samples got tested aforesaid tenders) on road and boundary walls was got through concerned laboratory. tested from any government approved laboratory? If yes, kindly provide the photocopies of the test record.
6. If no testing of the material was done in any govt. As above.
approved lab, Who is responsible for such act; department; contractor, junior engineer or any other person.
7. Which JE/AE/EE supervised the aforesaid works? The concerned JE/AE/EE supervised the works.
8. Please provide the photocopies of hindrance register The information asked is not and site order book about all the tenders as aforesaid. specific. You are, therefore, requested to inspect the record on
------- with prior information to the office.
9. Please specify the bricks used in the said construction Same as above.
work of the FPS or fly ash? Please specify the reason for using the bricks? Please provide documentary proof i.e. contractors bill, MB copy, hindrance register, site order book etc. for all tenders awarded in the aforesaid areas for the financial years 2008-09 & 2009-10.
Ground of the First Appeal:
The appellant has very comprehensively given his corresponding grounds of appeals with respect to all the replies of PIO in furtherance of questions asked by him. He contends that the information furnished by the PIO is vague, incorrect, false and misleading. Though the PIO has asked the appellant to go for inspection of the records in the office, the former has not specified the photocopying charges and other requisite fee to be paid by the latter. The appellant also contends that the information claimed by him is 'specific' and it is the PIO himself who has failed to construe the term 'as aforesaid' appropriately thereby taking it as a defense to not furnish the asked information.
Order of the FAA:
I have gone through the RTI application, reply of the PIO and the Appeal filed by the appellant. In the reply furnished by the PlO, he has asked the applicant for inspection of records. As the appellant has sought specific information about MVID, RBTB and staff quarters Rajpur Road, PlO is directed to provide the information as asked in the RTI application He is further directed to provide photocopies of available documents to the appellant after depositing the requisite fee from the appellant under the provisions of RTI Act.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The grounds taken in the first appeal are reiterated. Apart from that, the FAA is not concerned with the compliance of its order and 'collusion' between the PIO and FAA is apparent which has lead to denial of the information to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 18/06/2011: The following were present Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Arora;
Respondent : Mr. N. K. Yadav, AE(B) and Mr. Kishan Kumar, AE(M-II) on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, Public Information Officer & SE;
"The FAA erred in ordering that fees should be provided for information since the mandated period of 30 days was over. The PIO however completely flouted the order of the FAA and did not Page 2 of 4 send the information or even a demand for additional fee as wrongly directed by the FAA. He claims he sent letters to the Appellant asking him to come and inspect the records effectively stating that he would not obey the order of the FAA. No information has been provided to the Appellant so far.
The PIO has stated that assistance was sought from Mr. S. N. Hassan, EE(M-II) under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the information after the order of the FAA on 22/02/2011, who had not provided the information. He states that he also sent reminders to Mr. S. N. Hassan Deemed PIO on 25/03/2011, 31/05/2011 and 16/06/2011."
Decision dated 18/06/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the complete information and ensure that all attested photocopies are sent to the Appellant before 05 July 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information the deemed PIO Mr. S. N. Hassan, EE(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. S. N. Hassan, EE(M-II) & Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 08 July 2011 at 3.00pm 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."
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 08/07/2011: Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Arora;
Respondent: Mr. S.N. Hassan, Deemed PIO & the then EE(M-II) presently EE(Project), MCD, Civil Lines Zone, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi;
Deemed PIO & the then EE(M-II) Mr. S.N. Hassan has submitted that the FAA's order dated 22/02/2011 was received in his office on 28/02/2011. Since the FAA directed the PIO to provide photocopies of available documents to the appellant after depositing the requisite fee from the appellant under the provisions of RTI Act, the deemed PIO Mr. Hasan sent a letter on 11/03/2011 by speed post to the Appellant requesting to inspect the relevant records. However, the said letter was returned back to the PIO with the noting that door was locked and no one was available at the house. After the Commission's order dated 18/06/2011 the appellant received some information on 04/07/2011. The Appellant is claiming that still the information is incomplete and the pages are not attested. Mr. Hasan has telephonically informed Mr. Kishan Kumar who is the custodian of records to come to the Commission on 14 July 2011 at 04.00PM with the complete records duly attested with a certificate that these records represents the complete information sough by the Appellant. The Appellant is also requested to come on the same day so that he can verify the records and take photocopies. The Appellant is claming that the documents provided earlier are not attested.
Adjunct Decision dated 08/07/2011:
Mr. Kishan Kumar is directed bring all the relevant records alongwith a certificate as directed above at the Commission on 14 July 2011 at 04.00PM.
Mr. Kishan Kumar is also directed to bring the official rubber stamp at the Commission on 14/07/2011 and attest the documents provided to the Appellant earlier.Page 3 of 4
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 14/07/2011: Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Arora;
Respondent: Mr. Kishan Kumar, AE(M-II) & Deemed PIO;
The appellant states that the photocopies given to him are unattested. He has also stated that part information on 78 work orders has been given whereas he believes that there are over 200 work orders. The appellant has also pointed out other deficiencies. Mr. Krishan Kumar, AE(M-II) admits that there are 202 work orders.
Mr. Krishan Kumar claims that he was not responsible for giving the information. Hence the Commission directs Mr. Krishan Kumar and Mr. S.N. Hassan, Deemed PIO & the then EE(M-II) to appear before the Commission on 21 July 2011 at 10.30AM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them for the delay in providing the information.
Mr. Krishan Kumar assures the Commission that the complete information will be provided to the Appellant before 10 August 2011.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. Krishan Kumar to ensure that the complete information is provided to the Appellant before 10 August 2011.
The Commission also directs Mr. Krishan Kumar AE(M-II) & Deemed PIO and Mr. S. N. Hasad the then EE(M-II) to appear before the Commission alongwith their written submission on 21 July 2011 at 10.30AM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them.
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 14 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SS) Page 4 of 4