Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Central Information Commission & ... on 7 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
70.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12198/2009
Date of decision: 7th October, 2009
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
1. The information seeker had moved an application dated 18th August,
2008 seeking information on six points. By an unsigned order dated 24 th
September, 2008 the following information as per the details given below
was provided:-
Sl. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. Whether land sites were The land site in Raja Garden for
acquired in Raja Garden for providing lacking civic facilities
providing lacking civic are not acquired by the office
facilities in the colony? If so, of EE(M)-I/WZ.
When? And how much area
was acquired?
W.P. (C) No. 12198/2009 Page 1
2. Whether LAC/DC (West) land Does not pertain to this office.
completed the process of
taking over/handling over? If
so, when and how much?
3. Whether any CWPs were ever The office has not filed any
filed challenging the subject CWP and further action
award? If so, details thereof regarding CWP may be taken
with consequential action by Land owning agency.
taken thereon by MCD/WZ
authorities.
4. Whether any report was ever Since matter does not pertain
sent to the Hon'ble Lt. to the EE (M)-I/WZ according
Governor in response to his the report was not sent.
directives of 9.9.1997 (ref.
No. SS/KB/97/14026-32 dated
September 10, 1997)? If so,
a copy thereof.
5. Whether any action was As above.
taken on directives of Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Delhi vide
letter to MCD on a) 20.8.2002
Ref. No. CMO/PGC/02/646
(Hari Om Gupta, OSD/CM)
and b) 23.2.2007 Ref. No.
CMO/PGC/07/90957 (Varun
Kapoor, Dy. Secy. GC)? If so,
copy of each ATR on the
afore mentioned two
communications.
6. Whether a Grievances The matter does not pertain to
redressal mechanism has this division.
been established for dealing
with grievances lodged on
MCD Computer?
2. A bare perusal of the PIOs reply and information provided shows
that it was incomplete. There was non-compliance of Section 6(3) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides for transfer of applications
in case the information is held by another public authority or closely
W.P. (C) No. 12198/2009 Page 2
connected with another public authority.
3. The Central Information Commission noticed these facts in its order
dated 11th June, 2009 and the following observations and decision were
made:-
"The PIO states that the information relates to
Horticulture Department and on 15/12/2008 EE-
(M)-I/WZ had sent the RTI application to SE-
I(West). The PIO states that the matter pertains
to Horticulture and for the past six month MCD is
trying to understand who should provide the
information. This shows an extremely inefficient
way of working and it is obvious that officers do
not know who has what information. The
Commission directs Mr. Janak Diggal, Additional
Commissioner (Education) to fix the responsibility
for the delay and inform the Commission of which
officers are responsible for the delay. He will also
ensure that the information is supplied to the
appellant before 25 June 2009.
The Additional Commissioner will sent this report
giving the names of the officers responsible to
the Commission before 30 June 2009.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Additional Commissioner will ensure that the
information is provided to the appellant before 25
June 2009.
He will also submit a report fixing responsibility
for the delay in providing information in this
matter to the Commission before 30 June 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the
parties."
W.P. (C) No. 12198/2009 Page 3
4. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the
petitioner has drawn my attention to letter dated 12th December, 2008,
which was written to the Horticulture Department asking them to furnish
the required information. This letter was written after the information
seeker had already filed a first appeal before the appellate authority and
long after the expiry of the statutory period of thirty days as per Section 7
of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even thereafter, no steps were
taken to collect the relevant information and furnish the same. In the
report dated 29th June, 2009, the Additional Commissioner has observed
as under:-
" Perusal of the order of DC/WZ, the First
Appellate Authority, dated 26/11/08, does not
indicate any direction to the Dy. Director
(Horticulture). The Appellate Authority has
clearly directed S.E.-I, PIO, to provide the
information as asked for by the applicant by
31/12/08. Therefore the report of the Ex.
Engineer (M)-I/WZ does not appear to be
factually correct. Even assuming that there was
any such direction the PIO i.e. S.E.-I should have
immediately transferred this petition to the Dy.
Director (Hort.) for providing necessary
information. The record nowhere indicates that
this petition was ever sent to Dy. Dir. (Hort.) or
was brought to his notice.
From the above it is clear that the S.E.-I,
i.e. the PIO and the Ex. Engineer (M)-I/WZ are
responsible for keeping the matter pending with
them as a result of which there was delay in
providing information to the petitioner. As per
the information provided by DC/WZ, Shri Naveen
Verma was the S.E.-I w.e.f. 23/06/05 to
15/01/09, Shri V.K. Bansal is the S.E.-I w.e.f.
W.P. (C) No. 12198/2009 Page 4
16/01/09 to till date and Shri Ajay Gautam is the
Ex. Engineer (M)-I during the relevant period."
5. After examining the report submitted by the Additional
Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 25th August, 2009 the
Information Commissioner has come to the conclusion that Mr. Naveen
Verma is guilty of failure to furnish information within a period of thirty
two days and accordingly penalty of Rs.8,000/- has been imposed.
The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 07, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 12198/2009 Page 5
