CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002004/15059
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002004
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Mourya
9817/8, Multani Dhanda,
Paharganj,
New Delhi - 110055
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sadar Paharganj Zone,
Idgah Road, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 03/05/2011
PIO replied on : 01/06/2011
First Appeal filed on : 14/06/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : Not Mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 23/07/2011
The information sought:
The Appellant had sought information related to actions taken on the complaints from 01 November 2010
to till date through following 10 queries"
1- Details of complaints received alongwith plot nos. in SP Zone since 01 November 2010.
2- How many FIR have been lodged in response to the complaints in SP Zone? Provide details of
complaints, address of complainants and file case no.
3- Number of notices under Section 344(1) and 343 under DMC Act 1957 have been issued.
Provide details of notices alongwith property nos.
4- How many demolition orders have been issued since 01 November 2010 provide details of the
all such orders alongwtih details of property nos.
5- Provide details notices issued under Section 344(2) of the RTI Act.
6- No of FIRs registered by the department since 01 November 2011.
7- How many properties have not been demolished during the above period even after issuance of
demolition notices and orders.
8- Provide details of properties demolished during the mentioned period.
9- Within how many days an FIR could be registered by the department after receiving a
complaint.
10- Provide complete procedures/details that department takes after receiving a complaint.
The PIO reply:
The PIO has provided point-wise information and for photocopies had asked the Appellant to deposit
requisite fee at the rate of Rs.2/- per page.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant was received an unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order had been passed by First Appellate Authority
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant is not satisfied with the PIO reply and no any order had been passed by the First Appellate
Authority.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Mourya;
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Aggrawal, EE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, Public Information Officer & SE;
The PIO has provided certain information but is now directed to provide the following
information:
1- Query-5: Photocopies of the UC File of the properties booked from 01/11/2010 to 31/09/2011
2- Query-6: No of complaint made at the Police will be provided alongwith photocopies of the
complaints.
3- Query-7: Number of work stoppage notices issued during this period.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 30 October 2011.
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
05 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)