R L Makhija vs PIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 9558

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
R L Makhija – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/132612

Important Points

The Public Information Officer is obligated to provide all sought information available on record, and if an assurance to provide pending information is given during proceedings, the Commission may direct its provision free of cost to ensure compliance.

Subject

Administrative Law - Right to Information

Act Referred

Right to Information Act, 2005: S.25(5)

Headnote

The matter pertains to a request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning work execution and supervision details of a Junior Engineer and information regarding non-executed awarded works. The appellant had initially been offered inspection of records due to the voluminous nature of the data, and while information for part of the request was provided following inspection and fee payment, the information regarding non-executed works remained outstanding. The central issue is whether the respondent public authority provided all the information sought in the RTI application. The court observed that while the respondent had partially complied by providing documents related to work execution, they had failed to provide information on non-executed awarded works, though they gave an assurance during the hearing to do so. The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the PIO to furnish a revised reply on the pending point of the RTI application free of cost within two weeks.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Present in person
For the Respondents: A K Mandal

Table of Content
1. procedural history of rti application, first appeal, and second appeal filing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' submissions regarding the partial receipt of information and assurance of further disclosure. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. direction to provide pending information free of cost based on respondent's assurance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 18.04.2024

PIO replied on : 06.05.2024

First appeal filed on : 04.06.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : 16.07.2024

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.10.2024

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.04.2024 (offline) seeking

the following information:

CIC/MCDND/A/2024/132612 Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

“Information required in respect of Shri PARDEEP KUMAR Junior

Engineer (C) Contract supervise / executed work details.

1. Please provide the details how many work executed / supervise by Shri

Pardeep Kumar Junior Engineer. (Period 01.04.2023 to till now.)

a) Copy of work order along with Schedule

b) Copy of Measurement Book

c) Map

d) Copy of justification

e) Copy of third party observation

f) If bill was passed please provide the copy of bill farm.

g) If bill was not passed final bill work order was issued 2018-19 to till

now

2. Please provide the details of non-executed the awarded work.

(01.04.2023 to till now)

3. Please mention in reply reference no. RLM / 2024-25 / 06 while replying

to this RTI.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.05.2024 stating as

under:

“In this reference the application is required through this letter that the

requisite Information is not collectively available due to the desired

information is in voluminous nature. Hence the record can be inspected

on 20-05-2024, between 2-00. p.m to 3-00. p.m in the office of Executive

Engineer (M-IV) SNZ, Keshav Chowk, G.T. Road. Shahadra, Delhi 110053.

The photocopy of the same be taken @ 2/-per page after the payment

deposited with Municipal treasury.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2024.

The FAA did not pass any order.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the

Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

CIC/MCDND/A/2024/132612 Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri A K Mandal, APIO/Assistant Engineer appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on

Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.10.2024 is available on record.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he has received the information

sought on point No. 1 of the RTI Application. However, on point No. 2, still

desired information was not provided by the Respondent Public Authority.

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the

Appellant had inspected the records and after inspection, desired information

was provided upon receipt of Rs. 178/- from him. As regards, point No. 2 of the

RTI Application, the Respondent gave assurance to provide the information to

the Appellant.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the

case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the

Respondent had initially offered inspection of the relevant records on account

of the voluminous nature of the information sought. During the hearing, the

Respondent submitted that the Appellant had availed inspection of the records

and, thereafter, copies of the desired documents pertaining to point No. 1 of

the RTI application were provided upon payment of the prescribed fee.

9. The Commission further notes the submission of the Appellant that

information sought at point No. 2 of the RTI application has not yet been

furnished. In this regard, the Respondent, during the hearing, assured the

Commission that the requisite information available on record concerning

point No. 2 would be provided to the Appellant.

10. In view of the above and taki