Certified Copies of Accounts, Agreement File and Measurement Book of Work Orders - CIC: PIO has provided a misleading reply even after the FAA directions; PIO admonished, warned and directed to send a revised reply furnishing the relevant information
6 Sep, 2025Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.02.2023 seeking the following information:
“Please Provide us the Certified Copies of Accounts and Agreement File and Measurement Book (M.B.) of the following Work Orders.
(a) Concerned Office/Department :- Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
S. No. Work Order No. Dated Contractual Amount
1 1004 27.02.2014 2,88,72,819/-
2 1007 27.02.2014 2,78,29,058/-
3 85 11.07.2014 1,24,29,534/-
4 126 09.07.2015. 1,82,40,770/-
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.04.2023 stating as under:
“With reference to your letter on the subject cited above, the reply received from the APIO (M-I)/WZ is enclosed herewith for your information, please.
Encl. is as under:
Reply of transferred I.D. No. 204 dated 16.03.2023. As per application received under Right to information Act, 2005 by Sh. Narender Jha R/o B-253, Inder Enclave Phase-2, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi 110086. The point wise reply to the above said I.D. pertaining to this office is as under:-
In one the CIC order No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 in the matter of sh. H. K. Bansal (Appellant) Vs. MTNL (Respondent) in which reference is made to the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme court in civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors) the relevant portion of para 37 is extracted below:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTU Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties".
Therefore it is requested to minimize and prioritize the information sought by your good self.”
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.07.2023, held as under.
“During the course of hearing, the applicant informed that he is not satisfied with the reply. The reply was gone through. PIO/EE(M)-I/WZ is directed to provide the modified reply to the applicant within a period of 10 days. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.”
4. In compliance of FAA’s reply the PIO furnished a revised reply dated 03.08.2023 to the appellant as under:
“With reference to the order of Ist appellant authority vide No. SE-I/WZ/2023- 24/D-87 dated 26th July, 2023, Please find enclosed herewith the modified reply of appeal filed by Mr. Narender Jha in the office of SE-I/ WZ.
Encl. is as under:
Modified Reply as per order of first appellant authority dated 26th July, 2023 As per application received under Right to information Act, 2005 by Sh. Narender Jha R/o B-253, Inder Enclave Phase-2, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi 110086. The point wise reply to the above said I.D. pertaining to this office is as under:-
In one the CIC order No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 in the matter of sh. H. K. Bansal (Appellant) Vs. MTNL (Respondent) in which reference is made to the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme court in civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors) the relevant portion of para 37 is extracted below:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties".
Therefore it is requested to minimize and prioritize the information sought by your good self and also advised to visit to this office for inspection of the record in office hours within 7 working days and contact on telephone No. 011- 25104172. After inspection of the record if the applicant desired to have particular information, the same will be provided after deposition @ Rs. 2/ per copy in Municipal Treasury in the form of demand draft payable to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.”
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, APIO-cum-Assistant Engineer and Shri Abhishek Rai, Junior Engineer, attended the hearing in person.
7. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
8. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply has been given to the Appellant in compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate Authority.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application has sought very specific information from the Respondent. The initial reply provided by PIO vide letter dated 11.04.2023 is evasive as no relevant information has been given to the Appellant besides the same was given beyond the stipulated time frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Even after the directions passed by the FAA, the PIO has again provided a misleading reply vide letter dated 03.08.2023 to the Appellant. The Commission admonishes the concerned PIO for providing such incongruous reply to the Appellant. This kind of approach is not within the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and therefore he is warned on this count and advised to acquaint well with the provisions of the RTI Act to avoid such blatant mistakes. A copy of this order shall be served upon the then PIO by the present PIO.
10. In view of the above, Shri Vijay Singh, APIO-cum-Assistant Engineer, is directed to send a revised reply by furnishing the relevant information to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act.
11. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Narender Jha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/107923; Date of Decision : 26.08.2025