Deeply disturbing: CIC slams NDMC over two-year delay in sharing information with CERC
The Central Information Commission criticised the NDMC after the CERC had to invoke the RTI Act and wait over two years for information on its security deposits. The CIC termed the delay appalling and issued show-cause notices to officials
New Delhi: Calling it an “extremely disturbing state of affairs”, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has expressed concern after the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) was compelled to invoke the Right to Information (RTI) Act and later approach the commission to obtain basic information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).
In a recent order, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari described the situation as “deeply perturbing and a matter of serious concern”, adding that it was “indeed painful” that one statutory commission had to seek the intervention of another merely to obtain information relating to reconciliation and refund of its own security deposits.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by a CERC officer in May 2024 after repeated official correspondence, personal visits and letters to NDMC failed to elicit a response regarding security deposits and their refund following CERC’s shift from Chanderlok Building to the World Trade Centre in Nauroji Nagar.
The commission noted that neither the RTI application nor the first appeal received any response and that the information was furnished only on July 8, 2026, after the CIC issued a hearing notice, more than two years later.
It said there was no explanation for the delay in providing what was essentially a copy of official records. According to the information eventually supplied by NDMC, out of the total security deposit of Rs 4.86 crore, the civic body refunded Rs 3.48 crore while adjusting Rs 1.38 crore towards alleged outstanding dues and interest.
The CERC maintained that there were no outstanding dues and alleged that the demand stemmed from a retrospective revision of rent. “The facts of the present case reveal an extremely disturbing state of affairs,” the commission observed, adding that such matters ought to have been resolved in the normal course of official business without requiring recourse to the RTI Act.
It stressed that the law was intended to promote transparency and accountability, “not to substitute routine administrative functioning or become the only means of securing responses from public authorities”. Describing the conduct of the concerned NDMC officers as “appalling to say the least”, the commission said the case reflected “a high degree of administrative indifference”.
Such conduct, it said, “defeats the very object of the RTI Act” and “erodes public confidence” in public authorities. It issued show-cause notices to the then public information officer and First Appellate Authority and directed the NDMC chairman to ensure the RTI Act is not reduced to “a substitute for routine governance”.
