CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00205/2236
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00205
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.S. Chadha
42 - Gole Market,
New Delhi - 110001.3
Respondent : The Jr. Engineer (B) K.B.Zone &
Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Executive Engineer (Building),
Karol Bagh Zone, Nigam Bhawan,
D.B. Gupta Road, Anand Parbat,
New Delhi - 110005.
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2008
PIO replied : 04/09/2008
First appeal filed on : 12/09/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 01/10/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 14/11/2008
The appellant had sought certain information from MCD in respect of fees paid towards RA-
107, Inderpuri for Sanction of Building Plan vide Receipt No.252001 dt.05.03.2007 for
Rs.3,26,683/-
Sl. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. You have charged, the charges under 4 As per record, following amount
Heads as mentioned in your receipt, has been charged/deposited vide G-
please clarify the heads? 8 receipt No.252001 dt.5.3.2007 for
sanctioning of building plan of
P.No.RA-107, Inderpuri New Delhi
Details of amount Head of Account
1- Stacking ch.=1160/- 10-E
2-Levy=34,551/- 22-D
3.Betterment/levy=2,70,718/- 66-0167
4-Cess=20,254/- 85-2574
2. What is the charges of each head, per For 2 to 5:
sq.feer/sq.mtr/yards or so? Stacking Ch.@2/- per meter of
3. What is the calculation of each heads? proposed area.
4. What is the area of each head you Levy@450/- per meter for FAR
charges? exceeding 160% upto 200%.
5. What is the rate of each head you
charged? Betterment/levy@700/- per meter
for FAR exceeding 200% to 300%.
6. Have you charged the correct amount or Betterment/levy works out to
excess/short?, if excess/short, what Rs.1,35,317/- @Rs. 700/- per meter
action has been taken for it’s for 193.31 sqmt.)
refund/recovery till date.
7. If it is not correct, then who is the The then Jr. Engineer(Building),
responsible person for the calculation? Karol Bagh Zone, Sh. Neeraj Gupta,
had calculated the above charges.
Not satisfied with the replies of PIO the appellant filed first appeal.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered that “Appellant has received the reply, but he is not satisfied
with the reply, because it is not referring to his specific query. PIO stated that since this case is
approximately 2 years old, he may be given 10 days more to study the file. PIO is hereby directed to
give parawise reply of the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application, within 10 days from
the issue of this order.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Mr. Manjeet Singh
Respondent : Absent
Inspite of the clear order of the First appellate authority no information was provided to the
appellant. The PIO had first delayed giving the information, which the First appellate
authority had found to be deficient. The PIO had asked for 10 days time as recorded by the
First appellate authority’s order. The PIO has clearly flouted the orders of the first appellate
authority.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 5 April, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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. He has further refused to obey the
orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information
may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be
given.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 April, 2009. He will also submit proof of
having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 March, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.