RTI Judgement Series: MCD's parking lot agreement has no dates, no signatures
Moneylife Digital Team 21 May 2013

MCD's agreement, which was supposedly for five years, allotting the parking lot in Kailash Colony market to Ashiana Security (P) Ltd had neither dates nor proper signature of any recognizable person from the Municipal Corporation. This is the 96th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC) while allowing an appeal directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to provide a complete list of authorised parking licensees as well a list of unauthorised parking licensees in the central zone of the city.

 

While giving this judgement on 12 February 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “What is surprising is that a purported agreement allotting the parking lot in Kailash Colony market to Ashiana Security (P) Ltd has no dates on the agreement which is supposedly for five years. There does not even appear to be a proper signature of any recognizable person from MCD.”

 

New Delhi resident S Gopal, on 28 April 2008 sought information about parking lots allotted and details of agreement with contractors in Greater Kailash-I and Kailash Colony. Here is the information he sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the reply given by the PIO...

 

1. Which are the areas earmarked in Greater Kailash -I and Kailash Colony for public car parking where one has to pay?

PIO's reply: The sketch of the parking allotted by MCD in GK-I and Kailash Colony are enclosed for perusal.

 

2. What are the terms and conditions under which the parking lot has been contracted out to individuals? A copy of the same may be provided.

PIO's reply: Copy of the terms of condition for parking are also enclosed for kind perusal.

 

3. Who should be approached for complaints against the contractors of the parking lots? 

PIO's reply” Addl. Deputy Commissioner (PPCell) and Deputy Commissioner/ Central Zone.

 

The PIO replied on 24 June 2008, after about 56 days from filing the RTI application. There was no mention of any reply given by the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Gopal then filed his second appeal before the Commission.

 

During the hearing, Mr Gandhi noted the delay in furnishing the information by the PIO. “The PIO has given this information also very late which raises a reasonable doubt about the intentions,” he said.

 

He also noted that the five-year agreement for allotting parking space to a contractor does not have any dates as well as any recognisable signatures from MCD.

 

He then directed the PIO to provide complete list of authorised parking licences as well a list of unauthorised parking licensees in Central Zone to Gopal.

 

Since the PIO did not reply within the mandated 30 days period, the Commission found him guilty under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI (Right to Information) Act. The CIC then issued a show-cause notice to the PIO asking him to give his reason as to why penalty should not be levied on him.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00300/1606

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/SG-12022009-44.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00300

                                                                  

Appellant                                            : S Gopal,

                                                                New Delhi-110048

 

Respondent 1                                     : Asst. Commissioner & PIO,

                                                                Municipal Corporation of Delhi

                                                                Central Zone,

                                                                Office of the Asst Commissioner      

                                                                Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024

Comments
Anand Gadiyar
10 years ago
In a lot of such cases, we see that the CIC issues show cause notices to the PIOs asking why penalties should not be levied against them. Is there a way to find out if the penalty was actually levied?
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback