CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000263/11798
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000263
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr Harish Triparthi
D - 184, Saket,
New Delhi - 17
Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Taneja
Public Information Officer & SEII
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Office of Superintending Engineer South Zone-II,
Green Park, Zonal Office,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 20/08/2010
PIO replied : 21/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 22/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 25/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 27/01/2011
The present RTI application contains of 13 issues pertaining to the construction of boundary wall at
Saket Club, whether has been sanctioned or not. Whether any action has been taken regarding the
illegal construction in D Block. The appellant has also asked for a copy of the drawing of D block with
the park and the boundaries, and whether any illegal construction has exists in the park or not. The
name of the officers responsible for upkeep of the park and the amount of money spent by DDA for
the upkeep. The appellant has also enquired about the lease deed of the Saket Cultural Club.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
For query no. 1: a) this information does not pertain to EE-M-IV/SZ.
b) Unauthorized construction in the park is to be check by Horticulture department. However the work
of construction of boundary wall of D Block Park is being carried out by EE-M-IV/SZ.
For query no. 2: Copy of layout of D-Block Park as provided by Horticulture department is enclosed.
For query no. 3: This is information is not available in this office as this division created in September
2007.
For query no. 4: This information pertains to Horticulture department.
For query no. 4a: This information pertains to Horticulture department.
For query no. 5: This information does not pertain to this division.
For query no. 7: This information does not pertain to this division.
Reasons for First Appeal:
Information not supplied.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The remaining information has to be supplied to the appellant by the Horticulture Department within
10days
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Complete information has not been supplied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Harish Triparthi;
Respondent: Mr. P. V. Singh, EE(B-II) on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Taneja, PIO & SE-II;
The P IO has given certain information and is now directed to provide the following
information which has been left out to the Appellant:
1- Copy of the sanctioned building plan and lay out of the Saket Club.
The Appellant has pointed out that a lot of illegal buildings and structures have been created in the
club and that the club is encroaching the D-Block, Saket Park Land. The PIO is directed to conduct a
joint inspection of the structure with the Appellant and four other RWA members to verify the
structure with respect to the sanction plan.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the on point as directed above
to the Appellant before 15 April 2011.
The PIO is also directed to conduct a joint inspection of the property as directed above
on 28 April 2011 at 10.00AM. They will prepare a join inspection report signed by both
the parties and a copy of the report will be kept by each parties.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20
(1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission
to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 16 May 2011 at 10.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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
01 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RP)