Central Information Commission

Mr.Bhagat Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 21 November, 2008

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV, Old
JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796

Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00340/SG/0283

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00340/

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr.Bhagat Singh 31, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi -110003.

Respondent 1 : Deputy Commissioner (Central Zone) & Public Information Officer under RTI Act 2005,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o the Dy. Commissioner Central Zone, Jain Vihar Lajpat Nagar, Delhi -
110024.

Respondent 2 : Deputy Commissioner & First Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005, Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, O/o. the Deputy Commissioner Town Hall, Delhi.

RTI filed on : 20/07/2007 ID 101 PIO replied

: 16/08/2007 asking for payment.
First appeal filed on : 19/09/2007 First
Appellate Authority order : not mentioned.
Second Appeal filed on : 06/02/2008

S.No Information sought The PIO replied. 01 The appellant

had stated that the many of the You are requested to pay a sum requirements of
Section 4 were not available in Rs. 64/- representing the cost

the suo moto declaration of the Public authority providing the information which has on the internet. He asked
for the following: been computed as per details,

1. All the Section 4 declaration on a CD. Pages 32 @ Rs.2 per copy =

2. The work description of the PIO. 32X2=64. It may please be noted

3. Names of places where the details of that the intervening period between the PIO were displayedfor informing
the dispatch of this information and the Citizens. payment of fee shall be excluded for purpose of calculating
the prescribed period as per sub-section (3) (a) of section 7 of the Act.

The First Appellate Authority ordered: Not mentioned.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr.Bhagat Singh Respondent:
Mr. Kishan Kumar -deemed PIO. The respondent is guided by the urge to get RTI
compliance properly with thec Public authority. The PIO has provided whatever information was available,-viz.
the Section 4 displayed by the Public authority. The appellant was dissatisfied since the PIO could not provide
a CD giving the Section 4 declaration and it was not in Hindi, The PIO states that the Section 4 declaration was
not available in Hindi and he did not have the facility of making a CD.

The appellant's main thrust is that the Section 4 declarations of the Public authority are not adequate and do not
disclose relevant details required by a Citizen. The Commission requests him to make a note with his suggestions
and it will be very good to pursue with the Public authority to make its Section 4 declaration more meaningful.
Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21th
November, 2008.