CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: 91 11 26161796
Decision No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/00827/SG/00042
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00827
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Man Mohan Gulati
115-A, SFS, DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi – 110007
Respondent : Ms. Kiran Dabial
Deputy Commissioner
MCD (CLZ)
16, Rajpur Road
Delhi – 110054
2nd Respondent: H. B. Sharma
Addl. Cm. (Gen. and CSD)
FAA under RTI Act
Room No.: 115, Press Building
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall
Delhi 110006
RTI filed on : 14.02.07
PIO replied : 16.03.07
First appeal filed on : 10.04.07
First appellate Authority’s order:
Partially allowing appeal
Second Appeal Filed on: July 2007
Applicant filed application under Right to Information Act regarding unauthorized
illegal construction in DDA flats, Gulabi Bagh. He sought details of a Delhi High
Court order dated March 6, 2006 (re: Writ Petition No.: 1857 of 2004; Laxman
Swaroop Khandelwal vs. MCD, (CLZ) and others). This case was regarding illegal
projections/expansion of DDA flats constructed by residents. The appellant sought
details about (1) the guidelines under which projections are judged (what is
permitted, what is not; what is compoundable, how does regularization happen, etc.);
(2) the reasons for allowing illegal projections and what, if anything is being done
about them (are they being demolished etc.); (3) copy of the affidavit filed by the
MCD, CLZ in the High Court about projections in DDA flats in Gulabi Bagh (in
reference to the Writ Petition mentioned above); and (4) statement providing the
details of a survey conducted by the MCD in the appellant’s colony (Gulabi Bagh),
which found that residents of 60 out of a total of 130 flats had constructed
projections.
This application was replied by PIO on 12.03.07. She asked the appellant to provide
her with a copy of the abovementioned High Court Writ Petition and Order within
three days, so that she could provide him with the relevant information (affidavits
etc. relating to the said WP and order). She also stated that if he failed to provide
copies of the documents she asked for within 3 days, her response “will be treated as
reply given.” So he filed first appeal. The appellant responded to the PIO on
17.03.07, stating that the PIO’s request for more information on the case was
unwarranted: the MCD was a respondent in the said case and should have all the
papers relating to it. Furthermore, he alleged that the MCD had provided the wrong
number (1857 instead of 18574) of the WP on the affidavit and information in order
to willfully mislead the Court. The PIO responded on 30.03.07 stating that the
appellant had not furnished the information she requested from him and that she was
unable to give him a proper response. The appellant used these grounds to file an
appeal with the FAA on 10.04.07. He stated that the “PIO’s reply to the requested
information is vague, evasive in as much as instead of supplying the information as
sought, she has sought information/documents from the applicant.” He also charged
that she asked him for additional information as the statutory period (30 days) was
about to expire. That FAA passed the order on 27.04.2007, partially allowing the
appeal. The FAA did not agree to the request to furnish information on “reasons for
allowing illegal projections” etc. because it is not covered under the definition of
“information.” He also stated that the details of the survey conducted by the MCD of
Gulabi Bagh DDA Flats could not be supplied (it would require special compilation
etc). He did, however, agree to the appellant’s demand for the MCD affidavit and all
documents supporting follow up action on the High Court’s Orders. The FAA
claimed that the wrong petition number on the appellant initial RTI application
(1857/2004 instead of 18574/2004) had caused a delay because the authorities could
not locate the right petition. The FAA instructed the PIO to provide said information
in 20 days. The PIO wrote to appellant on 10.05.07, stating that it was evident that
the appellant already had a copy of the MCD affidavit he had requested (“as is
evident at Serial No. 6 of details of enclosure submitted in the appeal). The appellant
wrote to the PIO restating the FAA order and asked the PIO to supply the
information as directed by the FAA. The PIO complied with the order and furnished
a copy of the MCD Affidavit, but not the survey of DDA flats in Gulabi Bagh
conducted by the MCD and other related documents, citing that they were in
“moratorium.” The appellant, however, was dissatisfied by the FAA’s response and
considered it “evasive” and incomplete. He was also dissatisfied with the PIO’s
response. Hence the appellant has filed a second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
During the hearing following persons were present:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. Gulati
Respondent: Pushkar Sharma, Supdt. Eng. Civil Line Zone,
The commission pointed out to Dr. Gulati that many of queries were not information
as defined under the RTI act. However after a lot of discussion it has been agreed
that the following information, which had not been supplied earlier will be given:
A (i), (ii), (iv)
B (i), (ii)
C (iii)
Out of the many points in Dr. Gulati’s queries which have yet to be supplied. This
would done by 25th October, with intimation to the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Shailesh Gandhi)
Information Commissioner
10 October, 2008
CIC/WB/A/2007/00827/SG/0042
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00827