CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000319/13769
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000319
Complainant : Mr. Saeed Ahmed
6916, Ground Floor,
Gali Godni Wali,
Ahata Kidra, Delhi-110006
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Building Department
O/o Superintending Engineer
Sadar Paharganj Zone
Idgah Road, Paharganj, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 14/02/2011
PIO replied : 07/06/2011
First Appeal filed on : 17/03/2011
Complaint filed on : 18/04/2011
Complaint notice issued on : 21/04/2011
Hearing Notice Issued on : 07/07/2011
Date of Hearing : 01/08/2011
Information Sought (The Complainant had sought information regarding his complaint letter sent to the
EE Building against the residents of RWA Ahata Kidra. The details of the information sought are as
under:
a) Please provide the certified copy of the complaint filed by the Complainant dated 12/01/2011 to
the EE Building Department against the members of the RWA Ahata Kidra. Please also provide
the copy of the action taken report from the beginning till the end. (Copy of the complaint
enclosed).
b) Please provide the copies of the Show cause and the details of all such files under the said
complaint against the 9 members of Ahata Kidara Gali Beri Wali RWA u/s 349.
c) Please provide the copies issued to the police force by the MCD to demolish the illegal
construction by the members of RWA asked in letter dated 12/02/2011.
d) Copies of the 12 notices with receiving by RWA issued by the MCD and JE u/s 349 dated
12/02/2011.
e) How many properties have been demolished by the MCD and the police force after the issue of the
notice of Ahata Kidara RWA? Also provide the specified no. along with the no.’s of the properties
demolished and the photographs so clicked of the demolished properties.
f) As per the bookings in RWA of the 9 properties, how many properties have been demolished;
please provide the written detail of the same.
g) Out of 25, 9 bookings of the RWA are done:
(i) Is the MCD being corrupt by being lenient towards the builder of Ahata Kidara
Page 1 of 3
(ii) Are the politicians avoiding complaints against the 25 members of the RWA by the
MCD just to save their vote banks?
(iii) How much bribe have the 25 members of the RWA given to the MCD officials to avoid
any complaint against them?
h) Please provide the written detail of the conversation from EE to JE along with the date and the
diary no. as against the complaint filed by the complainant on 12/01/2011 and diary no. 6838.
i) Detail of the joining date of the officials EE (B), AE (B), JE (B), and SE (B), DC SP Zone who are
responsible as per the court orders.
j) Provide the booking no. and the property details along with the date of the same of the 25
members of the RWA.
Reply of the PIO (the PIO gave answer to queries)
a) Information sought by the applicant through his point is that the complaint copy dated 12.1.11 that
can be obtained with the BE (B)! SPZ office in office time by depositing Rs. 2/page. As action
taken report you can also obtain from the office of E (B) within office time with deposit of Rs-
2/page.
b) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that you can obtain the copies of show
cause notice arid DO from the office of EE (B) with deposit of Rs 2/page.
c) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that you can obtain the copies of Demand
of Police force from office of EE (B) with deposit of Rs 2/page.
d) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that you can, obtain the copies which you
require from EE (B) SPZ within office timing with deposit of Rs.2/page.
e) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that you can obtain the copies of Demand
of Police force and number of unauthorized construction of properties demolished with photo
copies from office of BE (S) with deposit of Rs-2/page.
f) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that you can obtain the copy of
photographs of unauthorized construction in 9 properties demolished in Ahata Kedara action is
taken as per process of DMC act 1957 with deposit Rs-2/ page.
g) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that the matter is on opinion and not
covered in RTI act 2005.
h) Information sought by the complainant through this point is that you can obtain the copy from
office of EE (B) SPZ in any working days with deposit Rs-2/page.
i) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that you can obtain the complete record
related this point from office of EE (B) SPZ with deposit Rs. 2/page.
j) Information sought by the applicant through this point is that the reply of this question is as per the
answer No. 1 & 2.
Note: The Commission on 21 April 2011 directed the PIO to provide the information to the complainant
within the mandated time.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No reply given by the PIO.
Grounds for Complaint:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Submission received from the PIO:
The Superintending Engineer through a letter dated 07 June 2011 reiterated his position that only a part of
the information pertaining to ward no. 89 had been provided vide letter dated 24 May 2011 received in the
office on 30/05/2011. EE (M) I/SPZ was directed to provide the requisite information for other wards as
well.
Page 2 of 3
Submission received from the Complainant
The Complainant through a letter dater 06 July 2011 mentioned that he received the information from the
PIO after the time had lapsed and hence has given a delayed reply despite Commission’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Complainant: Mr. Saeed Ahmed;
Respondent: Mr. G. S. Yadav, AE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE;
The respondent has provided all the information on 13/06/2011 and then against on 21/06/2011 as
per the notice of the Commission. The respondent states that the persons responsible for the delay in
providing the information were Mr. Arvind Kumar, JE(B) who was responsible for the delay from
23/02/2011 to 09/05/2011 and Mr. I. U. Khan, AE(B) who was responsible for the delay from 09/05/2011
to 13/06/2011.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
The information available has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIOs Mr. Arvind Kumar, JE(B) & Mr. I. U. Khan, AE(B) within 30 days as required by
the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice
is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. I. U. Khan, AE(B) & Mr. Arvind Kumar, JE(B) will present themselves before the Commission
at the above address on 24 August 2011 at 10.30AM alongwith their written submissions showing cause
why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the
information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of
having sent 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
01 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (IN)
Copies through Mr. G. S. Yadav, AE to following:
1- Mr. Arvind Kumar, JE(B);
2- Mr. I. U. Khan, AE(B);
Page 3 of 3