Central Information Commission
Mr.Gyan Chand Jain vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002157/14676
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002157
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Gyan Chand Jain,
9/3636, Dharampura,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -110031.
Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar
Public Information Officer & SE-I,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The SE - I,
Shah. South Zone, Zonal Office Building,
IIIrd Floor, Karkardooma, Delhi -110092.
RTI application filed on : 21-03-2011
PIO replied on : 20-04-2011
First Appeal filed on : 28-04-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 18-05-2011
Second Appeal received on : 03-08-2011
Information sought: the appellant asked regarding
1. The tenders for reconstruction of drains and roads have been awarded of gali no 1,2,3,4 of Dharampura Extn. and the work is in progress, please provide me the following required information for the same.
A. Provide me the certified copy of the contract agreement of each street. B. Provide me the certified copy of the schedule, of all the items which are to be used to complete the awarded work of o ach Street.
2. From whose fund the awarded reconstruction work of all the streets is carried on.
3. Provide me the year wise detail/information of whose fund spent from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011 for the development work of ward no 233,234.
4. Sewer line have already been laid down in the area of ward no. 233, 234 some years back and the same has been declared operative by the concerned department, under the present circumstances the exiting drains should be closed or they should be recontracted raising its present level. Please provide me the copy of that order/law of MCD,PWD,CPWD ext. as this work has been done.
5. The previous SE Shah south has issued a circular No. SE/SH-S/05-D-.41 dt. 3.8.2005 that the present level of any road should not be raised while reconstructed the same again. The copy of that circular was also sent to the E.E XIV far compliance of that, order. Now the reconstruction work of gali No.4 Dharampura is in progress, in spite of that order of the SE. A layer of brick has been put on the exiting wall of the drain, now the level of the road will be raised from its present level, Please let me know whether is it not the disobedience of the order of the SE
6. Whether the full detail of the works awarded (as mentioned above) by the MCD works DIV M1 is available on the Web, site of the MCD, if so get me the name of that Web.site.
7. Whether the contractor has fixed/placed a board containing t he the full information regarding the work awarded to the contractor by the MCD as per the order of the LCD Commissioner if so, please give the identification of the site where the said board is fixed?
PIO's Reply:
The PIO has requested the appellant to visit his office to have the inspection of the relevant record and he could take the information whatever he wanted. The copies of the information could be received after paying Rs. 2/- each copy as per the RTI Act, 2005. The PIO being voluminous information, has shown his unability to provide the same in the form in which the information was asked for.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the PIO reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The PlO is directed whatever information is available with the department and can be readily made available should be provided to the appellant within a week's time. For the rest of the information, the appellant may visit the office to have the inspection of the record and specify as to what documents/information are required so that the same could be made available at once".
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the PIO reply & FAA order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Gyan Chand Jain;
Respondent : Mr. S. D. Tomar, EE representing Mr. Arun Kumar Public Information Officer & SE-I;
The respondent has brought the information and handed it over to the Appellant before the Commission. The PIO has given a work order of 18/02/2011 and 06/04/2011. The following additional information still needs to be provided:
1- Copies of estimates and rules for construction of drainage.
The respondent states that after the order of the FAA he has sent the information to the office of the PIO on 20/06/2011 but the information was never delivered to the Appellant until today. The respondent claims that they have not been able to understand the reasons for this delay. The Commission directs the PIO to identify the person responsible for this delay from 20/06/2011 until toady and send a report identifying the person responsible for this delay to the Commission before 05 October 2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Tomar to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 05 October 2011.
The Commission also directs the PIO Mr. Arun Kumar to send the report as directed above to the Commission before 05 October 2011.
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 19 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)