Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 28.03.2024

PIO replied on : 01.05.2024

First appeal filed on : Not on record

First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.06.2024

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“नवेदन इस कार सेहक भगवान महष वामीक मिदर जो क RBTB Hospital GTB Nagar मिथत है, क ुछ अन#मतयो के चलतेअगत 2023 म मिदर का 'बजल) कने*शन काट -दया गया, मिदर स#मत पनः ु 'बजल) कने*शन मिदर मलगवाना चाहती ह, (not for family use) बामीक मिदर केभवनो म TPDDL 0वारा अगर 'बजल) कने*शन -दया जाता है तो इस सदभम MCD को कसी भी कार क1 आप 3 हैतो क ृ पया कर RTI act 2005 के तहत समय अव5ध मसू5चत कया जाए ॥ क ृ पया 'बजल) कने*शन के सदभ मप:ट एवं RTI Act 2005 क1 समय अव5ध मसूचना दान करवाई जाए”

2. The PIO, MCD, O/o Executive Engineer (B-I), Civil Line Zone, Delhi furnished a reply to the Complainant on 01.05.2024 stating as under:

“The undersigned had received the above application under RTI Act, 2005. The requested information does not fall within my jurisdiction.

The following part of the requested information does not fall within my jurisdiction.

The application/ part of application is therefore, being transferred to you i.e., PIO/Chief Executive Officer, Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005, for further necessary action.

In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction, it may please be further transferred to the Public Authority to which the subject matter is more closely connected, directly, under intimation to the applicant.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 07.01.2026:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Shri Om Prakash appeared in person.

Respondent: Shri Hemant Singh Negi, Assistant Engineer (B)-I/APIO, appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.06.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.

6. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 07.01.2026:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that observes that the RTI application dated 28.03.2024 was improperly and unjustifiably transferred by the then PIO to a private entity, namely Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd., under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Such transfer of an RTI request to a non-public authority is impermissible under the statutory scheme and indicates either negligence or deliberate avoidance of responsibility by the concerned officer. It is further noted that only after receipt of notice from the Commission, and after an unexplained lapse of more than one and a half years, the present PIO submitted written submissions stating that the RTI application had been transferred to the PIO/Executive Engineer (Electricity), CLZ. This belated transfer demonstrates a serious and deliberate lapse in the processing of the RTI application and reflects a disregard of statutory timelines mandated under the RTI Act.

9. In light of these facts, the Commission is of the considered view that accountability must be fixed for the wrongful transfer of the RTI application to a private body and for the undue delay and negligence in dealing with the matter.

10. Accordingly, Shri Yashpal Dahiya, the then PIO/Executive Engineer (B)-I, Civil Lines Zone, and Shri Satish Kumar Singhal, the present PIO/Executive Engineer (B)-I, Civil Lines Zone, Rajpur Road, Delhi, are Show Caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them. The present PIO is also directed to ensure service o