CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002461/16081
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002461
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant
:
Mr. Vijay Mehta
1474/102 Ganesh Pura,
Tri Nagar, Delhi – 110035
Respondent
:
Mr. Suresh Chandra
PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The SE,
Karol Bagh Zone, Nigam Bhawan,
D.B.Gupta Road, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005
RTI application filed on
PIO replied on
First Appeal filed on
First Appellate Authority order of
Second Appeal received on
:
:
:
:
:
27-05-2011
28-06-2011
05-07-2011
25-07-2011
07-09-2011
Information Sought:The Appellant has sought the following information :(1) With due respect, applicant wants information of ward No.151 Inder Puri.
Works department as mentioned below, as per RTI Act u/s 2(J)(I) where every citizen right to
know about Govt. works executed by works Deptt. From head of councilor fund of past three years
(2008-2011).
(a) Name of works
(b) Works name with complete description i.e. tender work etc.
(c) Funds sanction for execution of works.
(d) Date of proposed execution works.
(e) Date of start & completion of works along with status works & drawings.
(f) Name of agency/firm who executes the work.
(g) Proposed fund & work reason with remarks i.e. rate, calculation, time period decision
& whom recommendation received by Deptt. For works.
(h) How much amount paid to firm/agency of tender with completion of works?
(2) The applicant wants to inspect the record of works execute by firms/agency & at the time of
inspection of following documents are provided to me at my expense. i.e. measurement books, details
of expenditure, drawing, extra time permission & relevant documents of file. Payments voucher’s etc.
(3) As per section 2(J)(3) RTI Act every citizen have right to test the article / material. In laboratory
(certified lab), alongwith test report submitted by agency/firm to deptt. For payment, after execution of
work further the applicant be permitted to collect the sample & test the same in authorized
laboratory/lab in presence of deptt. person - The deptt. may ensure the applicant the sample collected
by them is truly & generally collect from sport.
PIO’s Reply:The appellant was provided with the following reply:1. (a) The information sought in part (a) to (h) is voluminous and is not readily available in the desired
format. The applicant is, therefore, requested to attend this office to inspect the relevant available
Page 1 of 2
record on any working day after 11.00 am and scrutinize the record as required by him at the following
address and the same shall be provided to him after depositing the requisite amount @ `. 2/- per copy
in the Municipal Treasury.
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (M)
52 BLOCK, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR,
KAROL BAGH ZONE NEW DELHI
Phone no. : 25781350
2. As above.
3. As above.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The following were present
Appellant : Sh. Vijay Mehta was present.
Respondent : SE(B), Karol Bagh Zone was present.
“The appellant has received the reply to his RTI application, but is not satisfied with the reply.
PIO stated that he has supplied the information as per record available. However, appellant wanted to
have certain documents which are reflected in RTI application. PIO/Superintending Engineer stated
that he has already been advised to visit the office of Executive Engineer/Asstt. Engineer, Maintenance
Division-I , Rajender Nagar on payment of charges. Appellant is advised to visit the office of
Executive Engineer/Asstt. Engineer, Maintenance Division-I & II 52 Block, Old Rajender
Nagar(TeI.No.EE-M-1- 9717788033 and AE-M-II-9717788751) on 27.7.2011 at 1500 hrs.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO and Unsatisfactory order was passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Vijay Mehta;
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Gupta, EE(M-I) on behalf of Mr. Suresh Chandra, PIO & SE;
The Appellant has inspected the records also as per the order of the FAA. The Appellant had
sought details of all works in the ward and states that since had written a line that he should be given
inspection he now wants to inspect all the works. Such a broad inspection of works would certainly
divert the resources of the Public Authority and the information available has been provided to him.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available has been provided.
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
02 December 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
Page 2 of 2