CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001837/4860
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001837
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Suraj Bajaj
I-308, DDA Flats,
Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110028
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Superintending Engineer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o the Superintending Engineer,
Nigam Bhawan, Anand Parvat,
Karol Bagh Zone, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2009
PIO replied : 04.05.2009
First appeal filed on : 15.05.2009
First Appellate Authority order : 10.06.2009
Second Appeal received on : 10.07.2009
Information sought:
The Appellant vide his RTI Application sought for the following information regarding the action
taken by MCD against Shop No. 10A of South Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi-110008 on 21/09/2005:
1. After this action taken, I, the owner of the shop was out of Delhi for the period of December 2005-
January 2006. In my absence, gate of my Shop No. 10A was removed and a wall was built by
MCD.
2. Which department of MCD built this wall? On order of which officer it was built? Give the name
of the Department and name and designation of the officer who gave the order.
3. Give the names and designations of all the officers and the workers who were present during the
construction of the wall.
4. How much money was used in constructing this wall and which fund of MCD paid for it? Around
what date was it estimated?
5. After construction of the wall on the main gate on Shop No.10A by MCD in December 2005-
January 2006 is there way to go in and out of the shop or not? Give the information after proper
inspection
PIO’s Reply:
PIO gave point wise reply to the information stating that “Conservancy Sanitation Engineering
Department of MCD took the action which has been closed down now and the information sought is
not available in this Department. You are also informed that there is no shop by the No. 10A.”
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant alleged that PIO gave an irresponsible reply.
Order of First Appellate Authority:
FAA ordered that the Appellant was given a chance of hearing but as he did not appear so the appeal
was dismissed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant has alleged that the PIO and FAA failed to provide him requisite information and that
he did not receive any notice of hearing from the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Suraj Bajaj
Respondent: Mr. TC Gautam, APIO, AE, KBZ
The APIO states that the demolition has been done by the Conservancy Sanitation Engineering
Department and that the records regarding the materials taken away during the demolition are in the
possession of Assistant Commissioner, Karol Bagh Zone. The APIO also states that according to MCD
the Appellant has occupied the space of a public toilet block and the encroachment was removed. He
states that no records are maintained of encroachment.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AA)