Mr.Ajay Kumar Goel vs Public Works Department on 17 June, 2009

                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Club Building (Near Post Office),
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001047/3746
                                                           Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001047


Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Mr.Ajay Kumar Goel
                                            C/o Health Care Foundation,
                                            D-94, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj Road,
                                            Delhi-110092.

Respondent                           :      Mr. Chandragupt
                                            The Public Information Officer,
                                            Public Works Department
                                            Maintenance Zone M-2,
                                            3rd Floor, MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
                                            New Delhi-110002

RTI application filed on             :      23/01/2009
PIO received application             :      23/04/2009 PIO says he received application from

SE-(M2-I) he then transferred the application on
24/04/2009 to Mr. S.C.Chauhan-EE, PWD F-

121(GOD), Ramesh Park,Near Shakar Pur, Delhi.

                                            Mr. S.C.Chauhan sent the information to the
                                            appellant on 02/05/2009
First appeal filed on                :      03/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order      :      No Hearing Held, only acknowledgement of
                                            transfer of Appeal.
Second Appeal received on            :      01/05/2009

Information sought:

The appellant sought information regarding a stretch of land parallel to NH-24 extending
from IBP Petrol Pump (which was closed recently) to the Old IBP Petrol Pump in Pandav Nagar.
On this land, on the Pandav Nagar C&D Block side, a multi Storey Building is being constructed
in place of the Old Petrol Pump and another is being constructed along the wall of C-18, Pandav
Nagar. The specifics are as follows:-

1. Whether both the constructions have been approved by the appropriate authorities?

Copies of such approvals, if granted, have been asked for. If approval has not been
granted what action would be taken against the illegal construction work currently in
progress?

2. Does the Government own the aforementioned land? If yes, a copy of the file relating
to the ownership of the land by the government has been asked for. If no, whether the
construction currently in progress is lawful and in line with the government policies
on such matters?

3. If the construction along C-18 has been approved by the appropriate authorities,
whether the approval extends to construction beyond the limits of plot, encroaching
upon public land? If no, then till date, what action have the authorities initiated such
construction?

4. Many steel structures are lying outside the old petrol pump on the slip road, what
action have the authorities taken to remove the same from the public road and has any
action been initiated against the owner of these structures?

5. What is the status of other buildings standing on the aforementioned stretch of land,
from which an auto market is operating? Are they illegal? If yes, so far what steps
have been taken to remove the same?

6. So far what steps has been taken against the auto repair establishments operating from
the shops built on this stretch of land, for encroaching upon the public land i.e. slip
road and entry road of Pandav Nagar?

7. What action against the Govt. officials is being taken for not taking any action against
such constructions?

8. Whether at present is there any proposal to widen the NH-24 along the
abovementioned stretch of land? If yes, has there been any land acquisition proposal
along the above stretch? If yes, please describe the area to be acquired in such a case.

9. Whether any permission was granted by the Govt. authorities for putting up a “Sale”

of woolens etc, on the road in front of IBP Petrol Pump (which has recently been
closed) near Akshardham Temple? If yes, whether any rent was charged for the
same? Please provide a copy of any such permission. If, no permission was granted,
what action has been taken against the organizers of such sale for using public land
for commercial purposes? What action has been taken against the govt. officials for
not taking any action in such matter?

PIO’s reply:

No reply.

Ground for First Appeal
No reply received from the PIO.

The First Appellant Authority’s Order:

No hearing held.

The PIO Maintenance had transferred the case to Executive Engineer, (PIO) F-121, PWD.

Ground for Second Appeal
No hearing held.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr.Ajay Kumar Goel
Respondent: Mr. Chandragupt, PIO and Mr. S.P.Singh on behalf of deemed PIO
Mr.S.C.Chauhan

From the evidence shown to the Commission the appellant had filed the RTI Application with
Chief Engineer -(M-II). Chief Engineer (M-II) transferred application to SE-(M21). SE-(M21)
was Mr. Tejinder Singh until 16 June 2009. It appears that Mr. Tejinder Singh kept the RTI
Application with him until 24 April 2009 when he sent the application to EE-(M212). The comic
sequence of event in this public authority did not end there. EE-(212) Mr. Chandragupt passed
the RTI Application to Mr. S.C.Chauhan, EE(Flyover project division-F121). It is apparent that
the organization does not know what function is with whom and its Section 4 compliance must
be non-existent. The appellant has been provided information by Mr. S.C.Chauhan on
02/05/2009. The appellant has certain dissatisfaction with the information provided to him. The
Commission directs the PIO as follows:

1- Query 3-there appears to be some confusion about the place of which the appellant is
seeking information. The appellant is willing to show the exact place to the
respondent. The Commission directs that the appellant and the respondent to meet at
the site on 23 June 2009 at 10.30am near C-18 and identify the place being discussed
about which the appellant wants information.

2- Query 6- the PIO has stated that “action is being taken for the removal of
encroachment along slip road.” The PIO will give documentary evidence to support
this to the appellant.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO will give the information described above to the appellant before 25 Jun 2009. A joint
inspection will also be done to identify the place on 23 June 2009 at 10.30am and the PIO will
then give the information relating to this before 5 July 2009.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO Mr. Tejinder Singh is guilty of
not transferring the RTI application within 5 days as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. It appears
that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .

A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission
to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.

He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 5 July, 2009. He will also submit proof of having given
the information to the appellant.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 June 2009

(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
AK

CC:

Mr. Tejinder Singh
PIO Suptd. Engineer (M2-I)
Public Works Department
Near Second Nizamuddin Bridge,
Delhi – 110092