CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000293/7190
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000293
Appellant : Mr. V.B. Bansal
209-A, Beverly Park - I,
DLF-II, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Respondent : Mr. Dilip Ramnani
Superintending Engineer-II & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Superintending Engineer-II,
Green Park, South Zone, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 24/09/2009
PIO replied : 26/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 10/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on : 04/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 18/02/2010
Hearing Held on : 18/03/2010
Sl. Information sought: PIO's reply:
1. Whether the land appurtenant to and of Village Ghitorni, New Delhi (being The matter pertains
categorically situated at Main M.G. Road on which a Metro Line is under to L & D
progress whereupon the habitations including the commercial activities Department.
existed as on or before 31/03/2002 that have come up as extension to GNCTD.
Village Abadi) has been taken as notified as Lal Dora Extension to Village
Abadi or taken as notified unauthorized colony be regularized in MCD
record as per proposal of JS to the Govt. of India, M/o. Urban Development
vide File No. 0-33011/2/94-DDIIB/Vol. XI(pt.) and the approval of the
cabiner secretariat in this regard vide file No. 06/CM/2007 dated
08/02/2007 (case No. 52/06/2007)
2. In reference to above query no. 1, a copy 'Status of said land' in MCD The matter pertains
record may be provided. to T.P. Department,
Kashmere Gate.
3. The properties on the main M.G. Road in Village Ghitorani, New Delhi in As replied above at
which the commercial activities were being carried out as on or before Sl. No. 2
31/03/2002 had been sealed and subsequently de-sealed by the MCD in
compliance of the provisions enacted under the Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act, 2007 and the Gazette of India 30/01/2008. in the regard,
place specify & confirm the Status of the above village land against which
the de-sealing action has been executed by the MCD on 18the & 19the of
February, 2008. in support of your confirmation, a copy of 'status of said
land' in MCD record may be provided.
4. Whether the properties on the main M.G. Road, Village Ghitorni, New As per available
Page 1 of 3
Delhi on which already the commercial activities have been existing even record, No such
before 31/03/2002 or before the de-sealing are covered under shield of information is
Commercial or Mixed land Use? available in this
department.
5. In reference to above query no. 4 a confirmation to land use in MCD record As replied above at
may be provided. Sl. No. 2.
Grounds for First Appeal:
"That the reply of PIO is vague in terms of the proposal of JS to the Govt. of India, M/o.
Urban Development vide File No. 0-33011/2/94-DDIIB/Vl. XI(pt) and the approval of the
Cabinet Secretariat in this regard vide File no. 06/CM/2007 dated 08/02/2007 (Case No.
52/06/2007). Moreover, the MCD is solely the Executing Authority for all purposes on the land
in Ghitorni. The reply of PIO is vague in as much as in the manner that MCD did the sealing and
de-sealing action in compliance of the provisions enacted under the Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act, 2007 on the properties on main MG Road, Village Ghitorni, New Delhi
Wherein the commercial activities having been carried out but the MCD has no record of 'Status
of Land' in its possession."
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No order passed by FAA
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Dissatisfied information received from PIO & no order passed by FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. V.B. Bansal;
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Bansal, AE on behalf of Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-II & PIO;
The Appellant has filed the first appeal since he was not satisfied with the information
provided by the PIO. He has delivered the first appeal to the office of the Dy. Commissioner of
MCD at South Zone Green Park on 10/11/2009. Neither the PIO nor the appellant has received
any order from the First Appellate Authority.
The First Appellate Authority Mr. S. K. Midha appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since it
appears that he had not passed any order in the matter.
The RTI application had been filed on 24/09/2009. A complete irresponsible reply was sent on
26/10/2009 stating that the information sought pertains to other departments. The PIO did not
obtain information from the other departments nor transferred the RTI application within 5 days
as per the law. The responsibility of providing completely irrelevant reply clearly rests with the
PIO Mr. Dilip Ramnani. The Respondent shows that the RTI application has been transferred to
Revenue Dept., L & B Dept. and the Chief Town Planner at Kashmere Gate on 03/03/2010. The
Commission directs Mr. Dilip Ramnani, PIO to obtain the information from these PIOs and
ensure that it is sent to the Appellant before 10 April 2010. He has failed to discharge his duty of
merely transferring the RTI application. He should have transferred the RTI application in
September- October 2009 but he transferred on 03/03/2010.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
Page 2 of 3
The PIO Mr. Dilip Ramnani is directed to ensure that the information is sent
to the Appellant before 10 April 2010.
The First Appellate Authority Mr. S. K. Midha is directed to send his explanation
to the Commission before 10 April 2010 ,why the Commission should not recommend
disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty.
The issue before the Commission is of not transferring the RTI application by the PIO Mr.
Dilip Ramnani within 5 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not transferring the
RTI application within the time specified under RTI Act.
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.
Mr Dilip Ramnani will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 14 April
2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given
the information to the appellant.
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
18 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(k.j.)
\
CC:
To,
First Appellate Authority Mr. S. K. Midha through PIO Mr. Dilip
Ramnani
Page 3 of 3