Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067. Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002919/6197 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002919 Appellant : Mr. Kamal Singh 219, First Floor, Tagore Park, Near West Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110009 Respondent : Mr. S.C.Yadav APIO & Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation of Delhi Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi-110024 RTI application filed on : 10/07/2009 PIO replied : 27/07/2009 First Appeal filed on : 11/08/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 04/09/2009 Second Appeal Received on : 16/11/2009 Notice of Hearing Sent on : 30/11/2009 Hearing Held on : 01/01/2010 Information Sought: Appellant had sought following information in regard to works awarded by Central Zone-M1 Division for laying Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC) for the period from 1st July to 31st December:
1) Certified copies of all work orders along with schedule of items of works involving RMC.
2) Certified copies of bills and vouchers vide which payments were made to the concerned execution agencies.
3) Certified Copies of MBs in which entries regarding RMC works were made in respect of the work orders awarded for this item of work by the above decision for the aforesaid time period.
4) Names of the technical officers who carried out test checks at the site of works where RMC was laid in execution of the RMC Work executed for the said time period. PIOs Reply: Citing the cause of information being voluminous in nature which may further divert department resources, the Appellant was asked to inspect the requisite record after contacting the office of E.E (M)-I. between 3.00PM to 5.00PM. Grounds for First Appeal: Unsatisfactory response of the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority: the information sought by the Appellant is voluminous and prioritizing the same would save the department from diversifying its limited resources. The Appellant was, therefore, requested to minimize and prioritize the requirement of information, so that the same could be provided. But, since the Appellant was adamant on not to inspect and prioritize the information required, iam left with no option but to dispose of the Appeal Grounds for Second Appeal: Unsatisfactory response of the PIO and order of the FAA. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Kamal Singh; Respondent: Mr. S.C.Yadav, APIO & Executive Engineer; The information sought by the appellant is fairly voluminous is likely to run into about 5000 pages. The PIO has therefore offered an inspection of the records. The Appellant states that he is willing to pay the cost of the prescribed fee for photocopies of all the documents. The PIO is directed to give an estimate of the number of pages to the Appellant who will make the requisite payment and collect the information. Decision: The appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide an estimate for the number of pages to the Appellant and advise him to deposit the prescribed fee. The PIO will send this letter to the appellant before
10 January 2010. After the deposit of the amount the PIO will ensure that the information is provided to the appellant within 30 days of payment of the requisite fee. 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
01 January 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SP)
Comments