Information regarding construction projects of Delhi Jal Board - CIC: Application does not conform to the 500-word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 - PIO: Opportunity of inspection has not been availed by the appellant - CIC: Provide again
The Appellant sought information through following 37 points regarding the work of
1. Provide the Name, Officer Address and Mobile numbers of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and other DJB officers, under whom supervision the above mention work is doing.
2. Provide the certified copy of schedule of quantity.
3. Provide the documentary details of payment made by contractor to the worker by cheques or ECS or online.
4. Provide the details of reimbursement of EPF and ESI contributions by the contradictory regarding the above said work order. Etc.
PIO/SE (South West), Delhi Jal Board, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 14-09-2018. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18-10-2018. The FAA vide order dated 21-12-2018 directed the PIO to provide fresh date and time to the appellant within stipulated time period for visit office of EE(SW)-III.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present in person
Respondent: Mr. N.K. Khare, APIO, EE(SW-III), DJB
PIO submitted that information sought by the appellant was voluminous and thus, he was requested to visit the office and inspect the records for himself and take whatever he deems fit, however appellant has not availed the same.
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that the instant RTI Applications seeks information pertaining to certain construction projects of the Respondent Authority and same does not conform to the 500-word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Even further, information sought in the instant RTI Applications are voluminous and contains unspecific information requiring interpretation and deduction of the PIO.
Now, Commission takes into account the submission of the PIO that an opportunity of inspection has already been provided which has not been availed by the appellant till date. Thus, in the interest of justice, Commission directs the PIO to once again provide an opportunity of inspection of relevant and available records to the Appellant as sought in instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date & time intimated to him telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant, will be provided after the payment of requisite fees as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. Commission’s directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Ravindra Kumar (Advocate) v. Delhi Jal Board (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Second Appeal No.: CIC/DELJB/A/2019/105166, Date of Decision: 19-03-2021