Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.J.D. Kataria vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 28 September, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.J.D. Kataria vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 28 September, 2011
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                              Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002223/14906
                                                                      Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002223
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :       Mr. J.D. Kataria,
                                             9398, Tokri Walan, Azad Market,
                                             Delhi-110006.

Respondent                            :      PIO & SE
                                             O/o The Superintending Engineer,
                                             MCD, Civil Lines Zone,
                                             16 Rajpur Road,
                                             Delhi-110054.

RTI application filed on             :       07/06/2011
PIO replied on                       :       01/07/2011
First Appeal filed on                :       14/07/2011
First Appellate Authority order of   :       Not Mentioned/Received
Second Appeal received on            :       11/08/2011

 S. No.                             Question No.                                        Answer
1.        Give information in Hindi language.                               No question was asked.
2.        Provide photocopy of the property no. 13/2, Indira Vikas          The map of the related property is
          Colony, civil Lines Zone that's map was passed (for how many      not passed.
          floors) by the Corporation's head office
3.        Give the name and address of the property owner and the           The map of the related property is
          builder. Which property had given B-1 and B-2 on which date,      not passed.
          give copies for the same.
4.        How much deviation (in %) was found in each floor during the        Any of such information is not
          probe taken by the J.E and the A.E. Provide copies of report.       available     in    the   Building
                                                                              Department, Civil Lines zone's
                                                                              record.
5.        If any sealing was made when the deviation was found there, if There is no record available with
          yes then on which date?                                             respect to this property.
6.        On which officer did the action was taken after finding of There is no information recorded
          deviation in the property. Provide the name, post and mobile in the records.
          number of the same.
7.        If the seal was broken off or is still seal (by the department). If The information/report about the
          the property is unsealed, then provide copies of the oath letters sealing of the stated property is
          that was given to the property holder and the builder.              not available in the Building
                                                                              Department, Civil Lines Zone.
8.        Is any completion given to the property holder or the Builder? No such completion letter was
          If yes then provide the copy of the same.                           given.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
      "No such order was received by the appellant."
 Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal
of the papers it appears that the information available on the records has been provided. The Appellant has
not mentioned any specific reason for his dissatisfaction with the information.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

Information available on the records appears to have 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
28 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)