CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003512/11087
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003512
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. G.G. Shivdasani
A- 104/2, Saket,
New Delhi- 17
Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Khanna
PIO & Superintending Engineer-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of the Superintending Engineer- II,
South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi- 110016
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2010
PIO replied : 27/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 15/12/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sent a complaint to the MCD Commissioner on 11/06/2010, to EE(B) on 16/06/2010 and
again on 26/03/2010 complaining about forgery and cheating. With respect to this he sought the following
information:
1. Whether any criminal complaint for forgery and or cheating or any other criminal action has been
made or initiated or taken by MCD against the owners of DDA flat no. A- 104/3, SFS, Saket.
2. Whether any action has been taken or initiated or is being contemplated against the concerned
Architect and Engineer who certified safety of design and supervision of construction in the above
mentioned flat.
Reply of the PIO:
1. No.
2. As per record till date, no action has been initiated against the architect/engineer.
Grounds of First Appeal:
Incomplete and misleading information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory, incomplete and misleading information provided by the PIO even after first appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. G.G. Shivdasani;
Respondent : Mr. P. V. Singh, EE(B-II) on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Khanna, PIO & SE-II;
The Appellant has been given information by the PIO that no action has been taken with respect to
query-01 & 02. The Appellant points out that no reasons have been provided for not taking any action. The
Respondent states before the Commission that there are no reasons on the records has to why no action was
taken.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has 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
21 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)