Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Dinesh Chand Jain vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 September, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Dinesh Chand Jain vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 September, 2011
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000412/14613
                                                                Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000412
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Complaint:

Complainant : Mr. Dinesh Chand Jain,
Quarter no. 2,
Double Store Welcome,
Phase-3rd, Delhi-110006.

Respondent                           :      Mr. K. C. Meena
                                            PIO & SE-II

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o the SE-II, West Zone,
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi

RTI application filed on : 22/11/2010
PIO replied : 30/12/2010
Complaint received on : 29/04/2011
Complaint notice sent on : 09/05/2011
Notice of Hearing sent on : 12/08/2011

Information Sought

1. The house which is under construction, is there any permission taken from MCD for this.

2. Please provide a copy of the map of house under construction

3. Who had passed the map for building house, please provide all detail with name and post of that
person.

4. Who is responsible for this illegal house construction.

5. Is this construction is made upon the permission granted map.

PIO Reply

1. No record is available.

2. Same as 1

3. Same as 1.

4. The constructor himself is responsible.

5. Same as 1.

Ground of the Complaint:

The required information has not been provided by the PIO to the Complainant within 30 days.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Complainant: Absent;

Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & SE-II;

The respondent states that the complainant had filed the first appeal and the matter was
adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 17/02/2011 where the FAA had mentioned that,
“in most of the applications the Appellant has not given the proper address of the flat/property for which
he is seeking the information. In which the proper address has been provided, the information has to be
given.”

Decision:

The complaint is disposed.

The information available on the records appears to have been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AG)