Mr.Saud Ahmed vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 August, 2009

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                  Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001656/4383
                                                         Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001656

Appellant                                 :       Mr.Saud Ahmed
                                                  House No. 582, Gali Joote Wali,
                                                  Churi Walan, Jama Masjid,
                                                  Delhi -110006.

Respondent                                :       Mr. Abdul Dayyan
                                                  Public Information Officer
                                                  Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                                  Slum & J J Department,
                                                  Vikas Kutir, I.T.O.
                                                  New Delhi -110002.

RTI application filed on                  :       04/03/2009
PIO replied                               :       01/04/2009
First Appeal filed on                     :       01/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order           :       04/06/2009
Second Appeal Received on                 :       08/07/2009

S.No         Information Sought                           PIO's Reply
1.   On how many areas and who has According to record Vahidudin occupied
     occupied Property no. 768/VI?        first floor and roof in property no. 768/VI.
                                          Area of 1st floor and roof were mentioned
                                          57.90 sq meter separately.
2.   For how many areas have Damages Vahidudin paid partly for 57.90 sq meter of
     been paid by Vahidudin and for covered area as damage since 01/04/1995.
     what duration?
3.   How and when had Vahidudin got Vahidudin got that property from
     that property? Provide certified Dharmavir Hind Phut Viper in January
     copy of the document based on 1977. It is not possible to give certified
     which he had that property.          copy of the documents under RTI Act.
4.   Certified copies of all documents It is not possible to give certified copy of
     relating that property.              the documents relating to that property
                                          under RTI Act.
5.   What action has been taken on According to application dated 11/01/2008
     Appellant's      application  dated after enquiry it was found that there was no
     01/01/2008 addressing Additional property named 768/ 1. In such case any
     Commissioner?                        action is not possible.
6.   Did Vahidudin get permission Vahidudin had not got permission from the
     before having Property?              department.
7.   Has Dharmvir right or got Dharmvir has not right to rent out or sublet
     permission to sublet the property or the property and he did not take
     rent out?                            permission.
8.   Can Vahidudin claim or has right This question is not clear.
         to claim for that property?
9.      Has property been allotted to                 According to record Vahidudin is damage
        Vahidudin by govt. department?                payee.
10.     Has Vahidudin apply for allotment             According to Vahidudin applied on
        of that Property on his name? If yes          08/01/2002 for becoming Damage Payee.
        then when?

Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned in his order that PIO was directed to check the reply of point No. 1 from record
and to provide specific rep; to each and every point of the appellant's application within a week
time from issue of the order.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
             Query no. 1: Information supplied by PIO was incorrect.
             Query no. 2: Reply was incomplete
             Query no. 3: Reply was incorrect and incomplete because date of occupation was
                          not mentioned
             Query no. 4: Reply was incorrect
             Query no. 5: Reply was incorrect because Court has cleared that 768/1 is
                          property of 2nd floor.
             Query no. 6:Appellant mentioned that if it was occupied illegally then why
                         not any action taken against Vahidudin.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr.Saud Ahmed
Respondent: Mr. Abdul Dayyan, PIO; Mr. R.R.Singh
The PIO had not given some of the information which he has given to the Appellant before the
Commission. The PIO is warned to ensure that complete information is provided to the
Appellant within 30 days as mandated in the law.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The information has been provided to the Appellant.

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
07 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj