CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002418/5542Adjunct-II
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002418
Appellant : Mr. Mohit Sharma
59-D, Pocket-J & K,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095
Respondent : Mr. B.M.N.Rao
APIO & Executive Engineer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara (North) Zone,
Delhi-110032
RTI application filed on : 12/05/2009
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First Appeal filed on : 16/06/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 24/09/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 16/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 16/11/2009
Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding the complaints of unauthorized constructions and action taken on
those constructions from 1st January, 2008 to till date.
Details were below:
1. Number of complaints for unauthorized constructions received by the Respondent's office
from 1st January, 2008 to till date.
2. List of those complaints with following details:
a. Address of the property against which Complaint has been made.
b. Date of receiving of the complaint.
c. Names of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer to whom these complaints have
been marked.
d. Date on which marked to Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer concerned.
e. Details of Action taken on those complaints by the officials responsible. Appellant
want to inspect the files related to these also.
3. Appellant want to inspect the Daily Dispatch and Receipt register of the office of Deputy
Commissioner, Superintending and Executive Engineer from 1st January, 2008 to till date.
4. Number of properties booked for unauthorized constructions by the department from 1st
January, 2008 to till date. Appellant want to inspect these properties and all papers/files
related to these properties.
5. Number of properties sealed by the department due to unauthorized constructions from 1st
January, 2008 to till date. Appellant want to inspect those properties and all the papers/files
related to those properties.
6. Number of properties demolished by the department due to unauthorized constructions from
1st January, 2008 to till date. Appellant want to inspect these properties and all the papers files
related to these properties.
Page 1 of 4
7. Number of properties not booked/demolished/sealed by the department for unauthorized
construction even after receiving the complaint for the same. Provide the address of all such
prosperities with reasons for not booking/demolishing/sealing these prosperities. Appellant
want to inspect all the files/papers related to these properties.
8. Number of applications received by the department for approval of the maps from 1st January,
2008 to till date. Number of maps approved by the department till date. Appellant want to
inspect all those files.
9. Number of registers and files maintained for keeping the records of unauthorized construction
and action taken on those constructions. Appellant wanted to inspect all those
files/registers/papers.
10. Number of sealed properties those have been de-sealed and allowed to start the construction
form 1st January, 2008 to till date. Provide the details of all such properties with following
details:
a. Address of the property
b. Date of sealing of the property
c. Date of de-sealing of the property
d. Reasons for de-sealing the property.
11. Is the construction in these de-sealed properties being carried out in an authorized manner
now? Appellant want to inspect all papers related to the de-sealed properties.
PIO's Reply:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
PIO was directed to furnish the reply to the Appellant within a period of one week.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The behavior of PIO was very adamant and not to provide the information. PIO had not provided
information even after the order of FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerged during the Hearing on 16 November 2009:
“The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Mohit Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. B.M.N.Rao, Present APIO & Executive Engineer;
The APIO has brought the information and given to the Appellant before the Commission. The
information has been only provided partly. The appellant would like to inspect the records all the files and
the PIO is directed to facilitate the inspection of the files on 22 and 23 December 2009 from 10.00am
onwards at the office of the PIO. The Respondent states that the person responsible for providing the
reply when the RTI application was field was Mr. S.K.Sindhwani the then Executive Engineer and APIO
who had the information.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Respondent Mr. B.M.N.Rao will facilitate the inspection of the records by the Appellant on
22 and 23 December 2009 from 10.00am. The PIO will provide the information sought by the Appellant
before 15 December 2009. The Appellant will be given photocopy of the records which he wants free of
cost upto 200 pages.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
Deemed PIO Mr. S.K.Sindhwani the then Executive Engineer within 30 days as required by the
law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Mr. S.K.Sindhwani the then
Executive Engineer is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1)
Page 2 of 4
of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the
deemed 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 14 December 2009 at 11.00am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1).”
Facts leading to Showcause hearing on 17/03/2010:
The Commission received a letter from the Appellant dated 08/02/2010 in which he alleged that
the complete information as directed by the Commission was not provided. Therefore the Commission
issued a showcause notice to the PIO vide letter dated 09/02/2010 to appear before the Commission on
17/03/2010 to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him.
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcase Hearing on 17/03/2010:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Mohit Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. B.M.N.Rao, APIO & Executive Engineer; Mr. Umed Singh, AE;
The Appellant had complained that the following was not provided to him:
i. Information related to point 2 (C) & (E) as it has not been provided by photocopy of the
complaints register.
ii. I want all the files related to booked properties for unauthorized construction for inspection.
iii. A list of sealed properties has been provided. I want to inspect all files related to these properties.
iv. Please provide the address of certain properties against which no action has been taken even after
receiving the complaint for the same. Please also provide the reasons for doing so. This
information has also not been provided by your reply.
v. I want to inspect all the files related to the properties constructed as per building plan. Please
ensure that the files with form B, B-1, B-2 and completion certificate be provided. These files
have never been provided even after my repeated request.
vi. I want to inspect all registers and files of the building department which are used for keeping the
records of unauthorized construction. This information has also never been provided.
vii. I want the file noting of all the officers made on the files of the complaint for unauthorized
construction. This information has been refused to provide earlier stating that the file noting(s)
are not allowed to provide under RTI Act, 2005 by you. But file notings can be accessed under
RTI Act and you may confirm it from Hon’ble CIC.
viii. Reply to point no.11 is wrong as 1 property is in my knowledge which has been de-sealed and
allowed to start construction. I also want the addresses of all other properties which have been de-
sealed. This information is being concealed with malafide intensions.
The Respondent Mr. B.M. N. Rao is directed to provide the process by which a compliant is handled in
MCD to the Appellant. If there is no such process this will be stated. The Appellant has agreed to limit his
information seeking to Dilshad Colony for the period January 2008 to February 2010. For this period he
wants to inspect all the files relating to unauthorized construction, Daily dispatch and receipt register,
Misal Band Register, Demolition register, Sanctioned Building Plan Register. These will be brought to
the Commission for inspection by the Appellant on 30 March 2010 at 10.00AM. The Appellant will be
given photocopies of any of the records which he wants. The office incharge Mr. Rakesh Sharma will get
these records to the Commission. The Appellant will give specific property numbers for which he wants
to inspect the building plans.
Facts that emerged during the inspection held on 30/03/2010:
“The following persons were present for the inspection:
Appellant: Ms. Ritu Mehra on behalf of the Appellant
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Record Keeper
Page 3 of 4
Representative of the Appellant states that the Record Keeper is unable to provide any clarification with
regard to the records that have been brought to the Commission. This makes the process of inspection
redundant. The Commission therefore directs the Mr. BMN Rao, EE and Mr. Umaid Singh, AE to bring
all the records as directed by the Commission on 17/032010 for inspection to the Commission on
15/04/2010 at 11 am. The Appellant will be given photocopies of any of the records which he wants.”
Inspection carried out on 19/04/2010:
The following persons were present for the inspection:
Appellant: Mr. Mohit Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Record Keeper;
Mr. Rakesh Sharma brought 145 files relating to booked properties and the action register. These
were inspected by the Appellant and the list of records required by him was identified. Mr. Rakesh
Sharma will provide photocopies of the records identified by the Appellant before 28 April 2010. Mr.
Rakesh Sharma has not brought the copies of the complaints given by the police about unauthorized
construction. Mr. Rakesh Sharma is directed to provide photocopies of all the police complaints to the
appellant. The Appellant has shown to the Commission letters written by Executive Engineer(B-I)
Shahdara North Mr. B. M. N. Rao on 22/01/2010, 24/02/2010 and 11/03/2010 to AEs and JEs to provide
an inspection of the action reports on unauthorized construction reports to the Appellant. The AEs and
JEs mentioned below are directed to bring copies of the complaints given to them alongwith action taken
reports to the Commission’s office on 29 April 2010 at 11.00AM. The Appellant will inspect these
records and take photocopies of records that he wants.
The following AEs and JE are being summoned to come to the Commission’s office on 29 April 2010 at
11.00AM:
1- Mr. Umaid Singh- AE; 2- Mr. D. D. Sharma-AE; 3- Mr. D. S. Verma-AE; 4- Mr. Sanjiv Kumar-AE; 5- Mr. V. K. Tyagi-AE 6- Mr. Roshan Lal-AE 7- Mr. I.P. Singh- JE; 8- Mr. B. S. Meena-JE; 9- Mr. Dhirendar Kumar- JE; 10- Mr. Devender Kumar-JE; 11- Mr. Praveen Kumar-JE; 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
19 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
CC:
To,
All the AEs and JEs listed above through Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Record
KeeperPage 4 of 4