CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001625/8700
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001625
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Pradeep Dutta,
s/o Dr P.K. Dutta,
r/o A-2, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi 110048
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mittal
Public Information Officer & SE Central Zone
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Building Department
Central Zone:, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 02/03/2010
PIO replied : 23/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 12/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 29/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 16/06/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. On what date was compounding charges of Rs As per record, difference of compounding fee
14,25,720/- paid by the owners of premises no A-I, (2,21,595/-) and levy for additional FAR (Rs.
Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110048 to M.C.D.? 14,16,184/-) (total amount deposited Rs.
16,37,779/-),
already deposited vide G-8 Receipt No.765062
dated 16-9-1999 and G-8 receipt No.760022 dated
30-3-1999,
a in regularization file with the Building
Department, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi,
was adjusted against the demand of Rs.14,25,720,
issued vide demand letter No.269/AE(B)-I/Central
Zone/2009 dated 19-5-2009 (file No.1
17/B/UCRJCZ/08)
2. The said breakup of compounding charges of Ps As per record, regularization file in which difference
14,25,720/- is not present in the regularization file no I of compounding fee (2,21,595/-) and levy for
17/BIUCRICVO8 dtd. 8.12.2008. additional
It is present in which file? Is there a separate file made FAR (Rs.14,16,1841-) (total amount deposited
for deposit of compounding charges of the premise A-I, Rs.16,37,779/-), already deposited in regularization
Kailash Colony. file with the Building Department, South Zone,
Green Park, New Delhi. Same has not been received
in this office from South Zone, so far.
3. Compounding charges of Rs 1416184/- for additional -do-
FAR file dtd. 18.3.99 and Rs.221595/- as difference of
Page 1 of 3
compounding fees paid on date 16.9.99.The breakup of
charges are present in which file.
4. Regularization plan for building made in 1999 -do-
( Regularization file no 151/RZN dtd.18.3.99) is not
present in file 1l7/B/UCR/CZ/08 dat. 8.12.08. Is this
plan present in HQ, Town Hall? After taking order dtd.
15.9.99 from the EE/BIdg/HQ, the regularization plan
was released on 20th Sept, 1999.
5. Is it correct to assume that compounding fees has been As per record of this office, compounding fee and
paid thrice, viz Rs 1416184/- in 18.3.99, P.s 221595k additional
on 16.9.99 and Ks 14,25,720k alter 8.12.08? Kindly FAR is deposited as stated at point No.1 above.
give the breakdown for the payment made for the
compounding charges
as a/m
6. What are the annual mixed use charges for opening a rates of annual mixed use charges for opening a
guest house in type B colony under clause 15.7 (other guest house in type B colony are mentioned in press
activity) of the Master Plan of Delhi MP of 2021 i.e. at release dated 5-8-2007, 25-1-2010 and its
what rate (Rs per sq m) is misuse charges levied by modification dated 4-2-2010 (copies of which are
MCD. enclosed)
7. Annual mixed use charges for running retail shops on Rates of annual mixed use charges for running retail
mixed use roads in GF and Basement are Rs 767/sq m. shops are also mentioned in press release dated 5-8-
Undersigned wants to know the reason for the 2007, 25-1-2010 at stated at point No.6 above
discrepancy
in charges
8. Guidelines for allowing mixed land use namely nursing Requisite documents can be furnished to the
homes, Guest houses and banks in residential areas vide applicant on deposition of Rs.261- with the Citizen
circular nos: Service Bureau at House Tax Building, Ring Road,
a) D/11 55/AddI Com (E)/99 dtd. 10.6.99 Lajpat Nagar-Ill,New Delhi for 13 documents @
b) D/639/EE (B)/HQ/03 dtd. 16.10.03 Rs.21- per document, and submission of cash receipt
in this office, as per provisions of RTI Act-2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO transferred point no (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the RTI application to the P10/SE (C)-1/South Zone/
Bldg/Green Park, u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act and no answer has been received by the appellant from that PlO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The RTI application has already been transferred to the Office of SE(C)-l, South Zone vide letter dated
25.03.2010.The appeal was disposed off.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO transferred point no (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the RTI application to the PIO/SE (C)-1/South Zone/
Bldg/Green Park, u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act and no answer has been received by the appellant from that PlO.
, unsatisfactory answer was provided to points no (1)
to (5).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Pradeep Dutta;
Respondent: Mr. B. S. Meena, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. A. K. Mittal, Public Information Officer & SE;
The PIO has given most of the information but is now directed to give the following additional
clarification:
1- Query-5: The dates and amounts on which any charges were paid in central zone against
property A-1, Kailash Colony.
Page 2 of 3
In this matter the PIO has provided information which appears to create very genuine doubt in the mind of
the appellant on two counts:
1- The PIO has claimed that a compounding fee which was assessed till 2009 was paid for the
said property in 1999. This would really stretch the imagination of any rational person. This
becomes open to doubt since the PIO South Zone is claiming that the regularization file (Self
assessment under voluntary scheme) relating to this of 1999 has been lost by South Zone. The
appellant informs the commission that PIO South Zone has filed a police complaint for the loss
of this file.
2- More mysterious is the PIO’s claim that there is no breakup cost available as to how a
compounding charge demand of Rs.14, 25,720/- was made in 2009. It is amazing and
unbelievable that a government office raises a demand of Rs.14,25,720/- without any
calculation being done. This means the actual demand could be 1.4lacs or 1.4crores. Complete
absence of any logic or calculations seems to becoming a characteristic of the working of
MCD. Hence citizens have great doubts as to whether the corporation is doing its work with
any rationality.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information about the dates and amounts on which
any charges were paid in Central Zone (Building Dept.) against property A-1, Kailash
Colony to the appellant before 15 August 2010.
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
26 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SM)
Page 3 of 3