CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001891/9001
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001891
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar
A/68, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-110027
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer (B) (HQ)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Superintending Engineer
Town Hall, Room No.71
New Delhi-110006
RTI application filed on : 30/03/2010
PIO replied : 06/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 24/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 28/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 07/07/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. What will be the level of +/-0 in case of a It depends on case by case basis. In this
vertical height of a motel on national/state context clause 2.11 of BBIs may be referred.
highway? Please furnish certified
documentary proof of the same
2. What is the meaning of clause no. 2.11of The meaning of clause 2.11 of BBIs-1983 is
Delhi Building Bye Laws-1983 for measuring well defined in detail in the BBIs .However
vertical height of building in delhi? clarification is not covered under RTI Act
3. If any kind of ramp is constructed from This is a clarification, which does not come
ground level to basement for parking of under RTI Act.
vehicle, fire tenders & for handicapped in
basement & if the ramp is constructed within
building line where the ramp is not under the
green belt area or set back area. Is it contrary
to Delhi Building Bye Laws? If yes, please
furnish the certified copies of the same.
4. Please intimate the Name, Address & Shri Sanjay Jain , Chief Engineer-V,MCD
Telephone No. of the First Appellate (First Appellate Authority),Asaf Ali Road,
Authority. Underground Car Parking, Opposite LNJP
Hospital, New Delhi.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appeal had been disposed off.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Executive Engineer on behalf of Mr. R. K. Sharma, Public Information
Officer & Superintending Engineer (B) (HQ);
The respondent states that all the information as per records has been provided and this appears to
be correct.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
17 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VN)
Page 2 of 2