CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443/9761/Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sachhin Sapra
F-18 Back Lane
Rajouri Garden
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & Superintending Engineer-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. S. S. Rana
PIO & ADC(Engineering)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2010
PIO replied : -------------
First appeal filed on : 07/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 13/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/08/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. In the Minutes of meeting held was recorded that No such record available in the office. A file
submitted that notices had been issued to all the 11 regarding the property was pending in the
shops. Monitoring Committee.
2. Provide the copy of replies in response to the above Same as above.
notices issued.
3. Provide the copy of sealing orders for the shops. .As per the records available in the office. The
property was sealed due to misuse.
4. On 26/11/2008 a letter was written accordingly Same as answer 1
provide the details of the action.
5. Copy of the re-sealing order for above shops No need for any order in resealing the property.
6. What action taken by the MCD in response to the No action had been taken on it till date.
letter that building regularization of F19 by the
owner.
7. How many shops have been allowed to be de-sealed No.
by monitoring committee at basement
and ground floor ofFI9 Rajouri Garden.
Page 1 of 5
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to send the reply within a week’s time.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 13/10/2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I;
“The PIO has given information after the order of the FAA but is now directed to give the
following information:
1- Query-3: All the pages will be attested and the covering note will give the number of pages
from the file are given.
2- Query-7: The PIO will inform the appellant that all the shops have been de-sealed.
3- Query-11: The appellant had asked for a detailed road survey report on the basis of which
certain roads were notified for commercial use under MPD-2001. The PIO has stated that this
report has been sent to Chief Town Planner(CTP) but CTP has stated that they do not have this
report and that since the zonal office has conducted the survey they should be able to provide
the information. Thus neither the zone nor CTP admit that they have the report nor are they
willing to certify that it is not available with MCD. In view of this ADC(Engineering) is
directed to either provide the report to the appellant or certify that the report is not available in
MCD.
4- Query-12 (b) & (c): The information will be provided by the PIO.
5- Query-13 (c): The query has been shunted from the zone to CTP which in turn shunted it to
SE(Planning) which has again sent it back to the zone. Since no body has the information
ADC(Engineering) is directed to provide the information to the appellant.
6- Query-16: The PIO will provide the information to the appellant.
The PIO has taken the assistance of Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) who is responsible for the delay in
providing the information.”
Decision dated 13/10/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal is directed to give the information on queries 1, 2, 4
& 6 as mentioned above to the appellant before 30 October 2010.
The Commission also directed ADC (Engineering) to provide the information on
queries -3 & 5 as mentioned above to the appellant before 05 November 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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.
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I)will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
06 December 2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on December 6, 2010:
Appellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;
Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Kumar, the then deemed PIO & EE(B), MCD (WZ).
The Appellant stated that he received certain information from Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE- I.
However, the information provided in relation to query 3 and 16 was incomplete. Further, the ADC
(Engineering) has not provided any information to the Appellant. The Commission received a letter
dated 02/11/2010 from the ADC (Engineering) stating that the information sought in query 11
pertained to the PIO & SE- I and the information on query 13(c) pertained to either the PIO & Senior
Town Planner or the PIO & SE- I.
The Appellant stated that no information on points 3 & 5, as mentioned in the Commission’s order
dated 13/10/2010 has been provided by the ADC (Engineering). The Appellant also stated that the
PIO & SE- I, MCD (WZ) has given certain information but not provided information on the following
points:
1- The Appellant has sought information about the date on which the resurvey was carried
out. The PIO has not provided this.
2- The Appellant had sought information on whether FAR was allowable under MPD-
2001/2021. The PIO has replied that FAR is not allowable under MPD-2021 but has not
stated whether it is allowable or not under MPD-2001.
Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE- I, MCD (West Zone) is hereby directed to provide the information on
the two points mentioned above to the Appellant before December 20, 2010.
The PIO & ADC (Engineering) is summoned to appear before the Commission with the information
on points 3 & 5, mentioned in the Commission’s order dated 13/10/2010 alongwith his explanation
showing cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him
for not supplying the information within the prescribed time limit. The PIO & ADC (Engineering) is
directed to appear before the Commission on January 5, 2011 at 03:00 pm.
Note: The Commission on 06 December 2010 penalized Mr. Jagdish Kumar, Deemed PIO under Section
20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 08 days i.e. `250/- X 08 days = `2000/-;
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 05 January 2011:
Appellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;
Respondent: Mr. S. S. Rana, PIO & ADC (Engineering-HQ); Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE(WZ);
Mr. Bansal has provided the information on point 02 as admitted by the Appellant. However,
on point-01 mentioned above Mr. Bansal informed the Appellant that the date of survey is not
available on the records. However, Mr. Bansal informed the Appellant that resurvey has been done
after 15/12/2008. The Appellant wants to know the basis on which this date of 15/12/2008 has been
arrived at and the date on which the resurvey report was sent by the Zone. Mr. V. R. Bansal will give
this information to the Appellant before 15 January 2011.
Page 3 of 5
Mr. S. S. Rana, ADC(Engineering) states that he does not have the information on the queries 11 &
13(c) of the Appellant which are as follows:
“Query-11: Please provide a copy of detailed road survey report (property wise count) on the basis
of which stretch of RING RD from Rajdhani College-Raja Garden to Rama Read
crossing was notified for commercial use under MPD-2031 in September 2006.
Query-13(c): Whether compliance with MPD –2021 clause 15.12.3(iii) was done? If answer to any
of the above is yes then please provide copy of such details. If answer to any of the
above is no then please provide reasons for the same.”
The ADC(Engineering) has stated that the information should be with Sr. Town Planner and that the
PIO/SE-I(WZ) Mr. V. R. Bansal should also have a copy of the survey report sought in query-11.
Discussions revealed that the matter was referred to the Chief Engineer & FAA who in his wisdom
has stated that the information on these queries shall be available with Sr. Town Planner and
PIO/SE-I(WZ). PIO/SE-I Mr. Bansal states that though the survey report was made by the zone the
copy was not kept and hence this survey report should only be with the Sr. Town Planner.
The Sr. Town Planner on 08/09/2010 has informed the Appellant that the survey report is not
available with him. Thus after months of labouring and playing passing the paper game
PIO/SE-I(WZ), ADC(Engineering), Chief Engineer and Sr. Town Planner have come to the
conclusion that some one else should know about this and they do not have the survey report. It is
important to understand that this survey report was the basis on which roads have been notified as
commercial and mixed use purposes. The Commission wonders whether this survey report exists
anywhere. Since various officers are not able to decide about this the Commission directs the
Municipal Commissioner to find out if the information sought by the Appellant in query-11 & 13(c)
as listed above is available anywhere in MCD. If the information can be provided the Municipal
Commissioner will provide the information to the appellant or alternately state that this information is
not available anywhere in MCD.
The Commission realizes that the Appellant has been tossed about for information which should be of
considerable public importance since MCD officers do not seem to have any coordination to provide
information. If this survey report based on which road uses have been defined is missing, or has never
been done, the implications are very serious. It appears to the Commission that these implications
have escaped the Senior Officers amongst whom the RTI application was being passed around in a
game of ring-a-ring-roses. The Appellant has certainly been made to suffer by coming to the
Commission on multiple occasions to get this information.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive
and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling
of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but
helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the
outlook.
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards the compensation of
Rs.5000/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursing this RTI application
and multiple appearance before the Commission.
Page 4 of 5
Adjunct Decision:
The Municipal Commissioner is directed to provide the information on query-11 &
13(c) of the Appellant. The Municipal Commissioner will send this information to the
Commission and the Appellant as directed above before 30 January 2011.
Mr. V. R. Bansal PIO/SE-I(WZ) is directed to inform the Appellant the basis on which
the date of 15/12/2008 has been arrived at and the date on which the resurvey report
was sent by the Zone. Mr. V. R. Bansal will give this information to the Appellant
before 15 January 2011.
Mr. V. R. Bansal will also ensure that a cheque of Rs.5000/- as compensation is sent to
the Appellant before 10 February 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 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)
CC;
To,
Mr. K .S Mehra
Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi
Page 5 of 5