CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002893/6148Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002893
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Mr. A.C Aggarwal
House No. 144,
Madhuban,
Delhi-110092
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Superintendent Engineer-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara South Zone, Vishvash Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2009
PIO replied : 04/06/2009
First Appeal filed on : 30/06/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on : 10/11/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 25/11/2009
Hearing Held on : 30/12/2009
S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Information regarding encroachments on public paths This information is not
in the Madhuban colony. The number of the house(s) available in this office.
where it exist .The steps taken by the MCD to
remove these encroachments.
2. Whether there was encroachment of public pane -do-
behind and along the houses number 32-42. Whether
there was any proposal under the consideration of the
MCD to make this path pucca with concrete.
3. Whether the Delhi officers' Cooperative House -do-
Building Society had encroached upon the public
path measuring 152 ft x 10 ft. and amalgamated the
same in their Community Centre.
4. Whether the Universal Public School had encroached -do-
upon the land which forms part of the Madhuban
colony behind houses number 68-77 if so, whether
MCD will remove the encroachment and by which
date.
5. Information regarding encroachment on footpaths on Regarding removal of
both sides of the road from Mandawali bridge to encroachment from footpath
Shakarpur Chowk along the Reliance fresh and action was taken by this office
Lovely Public School might be given. What were time to time with the help of
1
steps being taken by the MCD to remove these the general wing of MCD and
encroachments? Police.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Requisite information not supplied.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. A.C Aggarwal;
Respondent: Absent;
The appellant had filed a first appeal on 30/06/2009. The FAA Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara sought Zone is
guilty of dereliction of duty since he had passed an order on 05/11/2009. He should have passed an order within 45
days of the filling of the first appeal i.e. 15/08/2009. The FAA’s order which has been provided to the commission
by the appellant states that the hearing was held on 04/11/2009 and orders “Preset SE-I PIO, Appellant absent.
Vague reply has been furnished. Complete information after inspection will be provided with in 15 days.” The
appellant states that the PIO has refused to comply even with this very late order of the FAA. The Commission
notices that when RTI queries are made about encroachments PIOs are often very reluctant to give any
information. In the instant case the PIO is clearly following the same technique of trying to obfuscate/refuse
information on encroachments sought by the appellant.
Commission’s decision dated 30/12/2009:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to provide the complete information as per the order of the FAA to
the Appellant before 15 January 2010. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing
the information to the Appellant after the order of the First Appellate Authority. He was directed to present himself
before the Commission on 21 January 2010 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing held on 21/01/2010:
The following persons were:
Appellant: Mr. A.C. Aggarwal;
Respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar, SE-I/PIO, Shahdara South Zone;
The information provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 15/01/2010 appears to be incomplete.
W.r.t. Query 1 and 2- no detailed information has been given.
W.r.t. Query 3 and 4- information is complete as layout plans are not available. Two letters have been sent by the
EE (M-II) and SE-I, Shah (S)- one to the Chief Town Planner, MCD and the second to the Chief
Engineer(East), DDA asking for the layout plan for Madhuban Colony, Preet Vihar
W.r.t. Query 5- it has been stated that the query does not pertain to this office and the SE has stated that it
pertains to SE II. There is no proof that the Application has been transferred to the SE II.
The First Appellate Authority had vide its order dated 05/11/2009 directed SE-I to give information to the
Appellant. Mr. Arun Kumar joined as SE I on 06/11/2009.
The PIO was asked why the order of the FAA to do a site inspection and provide the information within 15 days
had not been implemented. It is MCD officials’ responsibility to prevent illegal constructions and encroachments.
Even when citizens highlight cases of illegal construction and encroachments MCD officials refuse to give any
2
meaningful information and continue to delay matters so that all the illegal works can continue. In the instant case
even after the FAA’s order to do a site inspection and provide information within 15 days form 05/11/2009 nothing
significant has been done until now. A very lame peace of information been brought by the PIO dated 15/01/2010
in which on point-1 the PIO admits that there are many encroachments but refuses to give any details. On points-3,
4 & 5 again the PIO is not confirming or denying encroachments. It is evident that information has been denied on
encroachment on purpose. There has been gross delay all along in this matter but even if the Commission assumes
that MCD officers are incapable of understanding the RTI Applications the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner
on 05/11/2009 was very clear and specific. The site inspection should have been done and information provided by
20/11/2009. No information was provided and on 20/01/2010 still incomplete information has been provided to the
Appellant. The PIO has been asked for explanation for this. The PIO states, “Regarding item no. 3 & 4 two
different layout plans are to be consulted for which division has issued requisition to Town Planning Department
and Building Headquarter. The information will be supplied at the earliest on receipt of these documents. As
regard item no. 5 this pertains to the other PIO SE-II from whom the Commission order has been received.”
The Commission sees no reasonable cause been offered for not providing the information. The only cause that
occurs to the Commission for not providing the information appears to be to allow encroachments to continue
without any hindrance. As regards query-5 the Commission directs Mr. Pushkar Sharma, PIO/SE-II to personally
ensure that the information is provided to the Appellant before 10 February 2010.
Mr. Arun Kumar was directed to give the names of the responsible officers to the Commission on 22 January 2010
at 2.30pm
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing held on 10/02/2010:
The following persons were:
Appellant: Mr. A.C. Aggarwal.
Respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar, SE-I/PIO, Shahdara South Zone, Mr Rajiv Jain (EE, M-II, Geeta Colony), Mr.
Pushkar Sharma (PIO, SE II, Shahdara South Zone), Mr. Muta Singh (EE-M-IV) & Mr. Rajeev Sharma (AE, O/o
EE [M] II).
The Respondent has given information based on inspection carried out by MCD officers. The Appellant feels that
this is not representative of the facts on ground. There are also some differences in the queries of the information
sought and the information provided. After discussions it was felt that the purpose of the Appellant would be
served better if the joint inspection of the area was done by the Appellant and the Respondent. The joint inspection
will be done Mr Arun Kumar (SE I) and Mr. Pushkar Sharma (SE II, Shahdara South Zone) and Mr Ac Agarwal
(Appellant) on 11 February 2010 at 12 noon. They will all assemble at Reliance Fresh shop and record the
observations jointly. If there are any differences in views both the Respondent and the Appellant will record their
own perspective. Photographs will be taken on the both the sides will sign the prints and the observation during the
joint inspection.
The PIO will also given certified copies of composite lay out plans of Preet Vihar, Madhuban and building plan
along with the completion certificate of the community centre and the school free of cost. The plans will be
provided to the Appellant by Mr Arun Kumar (PIO) before 28 February 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
10 February 2010
3