CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000400/12239
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000400
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Kapoor
16/173, Gali No 6, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
-110005.
Respondent : Mr. N. C. Sharma
PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o The Superintending Engineer (RH-I),
Rohini Zone, Sector-5, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2010
PIO replied : 16/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 06/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 09/02/2011
Notice of Hearing sent on : 04/04/2011
Hearing held on : 03/05/2011
RTI is regarding permanent de-sealing of property.
Sl. Information Sought regarding RTI: PIO Reply
1. Why the appellant's shop had been sealed and not By appealing to de-seal the shop with the
de-sealing now, even all the relevant documents submission of affidavit alongwith the
already have been submitted to MCD? Give the application, then the action will be taken
reasons. against the sealed shop.
2. Why the shop no.5 has been de-sealed on date Copies of order can be received by submitting
03/11/2010? Who is responsible to pass the Rs. 10/- and appellant can inspect at any
order of de-sealed the sealed shops? Provide the working day.
copy of same. Please provide the date when the
shop was requested to de-seal.
3. Why the multiple shops has been running in a single One shop can be run in a single flat, but if more
flat on Lawrence road, even the order for DDA than one shop were running there then they
Flats is that a single shop can running on a will responsible by own. There is no any
single flat? Who has passed the order in the Order.
relevant above subject? Provide a copy of same.
4. On what basis the order had implemented to run a Order for a single shop in D.D.A. Flats, it is
shop in a single D.D.A. flat? Provide the accordingly to MPD 2021.
documents, behalf of which the permission can
be given to run shops.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
The appellant is asking for some more additional queries with RTI in 1st appeal.
Order of the FAA:
FAA order is not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Provided information is not satisfied and misleading. According to the appellant, the case was not solved
since last three years.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Kapil Kapoor representing Mr. Subhash Kapoor;
Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Sethi, AE on behalf of Mr. N. C. Sharma, PIO & SE;
The Appellant has been provided information as per the available records. The Appellant has a
grievance that whereas his shop has been sealed and not allowed to open, many other shops which were
sealed with his shop are doing business regularly. He states that shop no-4 which has been de-sealed by
the order of the Supreme Court’s Monitoring Committee is also currently running as a commercial
establishment. The Respondent states that this not true but an encroachment has been made on the
footpath and commercial activity has been going on there. This is indeed a sorry state of affairs where an
officer is admitting encroachment on the public land and no action has been taken by the Department.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided as per records.
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
03 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)