CIC asks MCD not to reject RTI missive on flimsy grounds

10 Jun 2010, 0313 hrs IST,ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to reject right to information (RTI) applications on “flimsy” grounds.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has refused to accept an RTI application addressed to its central public information officer (CPIO) saying there was no such post in its office. Information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said a citizen has no means of knowing as to which public information officer within the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any other department should be addressed.

“It is for the department to ensure that any communication received in the capacity of an RTI application should be accepted and further forwarded to the concerned public information officer,” he said while hearing the plea of activist SC Agarwal.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has apparently been returning applications addressed to the central public information officer, MCD. Delhi businessman and right to information activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal’s application in April addressed to the CPIO was returned to him with the remark that there is “no such post at MCD Townhall”.

Under the government directives, RTI application can be sent to the CPIO. The RTI Act also states that the application should be transferred to the concerned PIO within five days and responded to within 35 days instead of 30.

Earlier this year, the CIC had criticised the MCD and the Delhi Police for not helping out an RTI applicant’s friends who were assaulted by a mob led by a municipal councillor.

The CIC said if police and the MCD did not do their duty and assist the information commission, then it would be impossible for people to exercise their “fundamental right to information” and the commission will find it difficult to discharge its duties.

In February, the CIC had recommended disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of MCD. The FAA failed to conduct a hearing and pass orders in spite of specific directions of the CIC, within the mandated time limit of 30 days or maximum 45 days.