CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000976/7956
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000976
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Gurjeet Singh
H-28, East Chander Nagar,
Delhi- 110051.
Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Superintendent Engineer I
Zonal Office Building, 3rd
Floor Karkardooma, Shahdara
South Zone,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
RTI application filed on : 29/01/2010
PIO replied : 07/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/03/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : No hearing till date.
Second Appeal received on : 19/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information regarding Building Bye-Laws and rules under sanctioned plan
of a non-residential Building.
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Total F.A.R. permitted/floor & upto 4 floor with stilt at All information required
ground floor. available in the Master Plan
2021/B.B.L. The same can be
purchased from the open
market.
2. Total permissible height of Building. -do-
3. Mandatory and non-compoundable structural safety -do-
norms, mention of any compoundable norms.
4. Necessity of demolishing the old building to construct -do-
the new one?
a) If some part…height of old building, is it
compoundable?
b) If not violative of structural safety?
5. Mandatory width of side walls, protection by laws to -do-
neighbourhood in case of seepage and dampness and
action that can be taken against the owner of such
building.
6. Provisions regarding lift space and safety from fire and -do-
of the building.
Ground of First Appeal:
No information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered:
No hearing till date.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Gurjeet Singh;
Respondent: Mr. H. S. Singh, EE(B-I) on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar, PIO & SE;
The PIO has taken a correct position that Right to Information means providing the
information based on records available. The Appellant is actually seeking clarification and
interpretation of the building rules. Whereas it would be desirable that various public authorities
interacting with citizens have their rules in a manner which can be easily understood by the
citizens, RTI cannot provide this by itself. During the discussion it emerged that the appellant
was seeking information about the FAR in case where the plot size is 104.5Sq.meters. The PIO
has provided the information verbally that rule 4.4.3.(5)-(A-2) of MPD-2021 would apply. The
PIO is directed to provide a photocopy of this to the appellant.
The RTI application had been filed on 29/01/2010 and the information provided was very simple
stating that the bye-laws of MPD-2021 would apply. To provide this simple information it has
taken nearly three month and information was supplied on 09/04/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The PIO is directed to provide a copy of the rule as mentioned above to the
Appellant before 10 June 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within
30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal
provisions of Section 20 (1). 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 June 2010 at 4.30pm
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
02 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AG)