CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001282/13288
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001282
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S.C. Yogi
Senior Journalist
8, Alipur Road
Delhi-110040
Respondent : Mr. N. K. Gupta
Deemed PIO & AE(B),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sadar Paharganj Zone, Idgah Road,
Paharganj, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 07/01/2011
PIO replied on : 27/04/2011
First Appeal filed on : 27/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : -------------
Second Appeal received on : 11/05/2011
SL. Query Reply of PIO
1. Whether MCD has recognized any map for the assets no. 5354 at MCD has not passed any map
nayi basti for construction. Whether MCD has taken any kind of for the asset no. 5354 at nayi
approval for the construction.If yes please provide photocopy of basti, Harful singh and no
it.Whether this illegitimate construction is under the notice of Deputy record is available.
commissioner.
2. Please give details about the amount of money given for the approval As Above
of the map.If it has been paid through cheque/DD, please provide the
cheque/DD no. and also the name of the bank.Whether this map is
residentially or commercially prepared.
3. If this construction is not approved by the MCD, what are the MCD has worked accordingly
measures taken by the authorities? and booked the construction.
4. Whether MCD has booked for the break down of the illegitimate As Above
construction of the assets no.5354.If yes,why it has not been
shattered yet?
5. If there is any kind of difficulty in breaking down the assets no.5354 The work has been done as per
then whether it has been sealed?If not,why?If yes ,How much the procedure.
estimated time is kept for breaking down of this illegitimate
construction?
6. If MCD has approved the map for construction in the asset no.5354 Same as reply to Query no.1
then whether the construction is being done according to the map
approved by MCD.If not,what are the action taken by the MCD.
7. If there is an approval by the MCD then which engineer has been Same as reply to Query no.1
asked to submit the report of the working of the construction in the
Page 1 of 3
asset no.5354.Please provide the details of engineer including his/her
mobile number.
8. Whether the Engineer has submitted his/her report to the Assistant Same as reply to Query no.3
Engineer,Executive Engineer or Supervising Engineer and what is
the status mentioned by him/her?
9. What is the area of asset no.5354.?What was the condition of asset No record is available in this
no. 5354 before the complaint or before the illegitimate construction? matter.
10. How much percentage of area of the Asset No.5354 has been As Above
approved.Please provide the name,address and licence no. of the
Architect.
11. If there is an approval of the map for the construction in the asset As Above
no.5354,please provide the details that how much floor should be
built along with the no. of room, no. of kitchen,no.of bathroom.
12. Whether this construction is occurring under the part of property. Same as reply to Query no.1
13. Whether any earlier complaint has been received about the No complaint is available in
illegitimate construction.If yes,please provide the details of the this matter .
complaint along with the name of the complainant.Also provide
information regarding action taken by the MCD after the complaint.
14. Please provide the details of all the officials who are directly linked
The Appellant can get
to the asset no.5354 of the property and also provide a list ofcomplete details regarding the
Engineers and their working area. property and other relevant
information at L.D.C/SP2
Building Department.
15. How many complaint have been received by the MCD regarding the No record is available in this
asset no. 5354 . matter.
16. Please response to all the queries in Hindi. Whole queries are responded
in Hindi.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO, not satisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No hearing
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant did not receive any information within 60 days.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, Deemed PIO & AE(B);
The respondent states that the information was sent on 27/04/2011 by the then EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet
Singh. The respondent states that assistance had been taken under Section 5(4) from Mr. Inderjeet Singh
on 11/01/2011 who provided the information only on 27/04/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Information available on the records appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet Singh & deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
Page 2 of 3
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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.
The then EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet Singh & deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 05 August 2011 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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
06 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (MS))
Copy through Mr. N. K. Gupta, AE(B) to:
1- The then EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet Singh & deemed PIO
Page 3 of 3