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/2008/00347/SG/0309
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00347/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar Saini & Kanoj Mayank
Sons of Shri Shyam Sunder
WZ-40, Channa Mal Park (Kaidar Bagh),
New Delhi- 110 026
Respondent 1 : Deputy Commissioner (West Zone),
Deputy Commissioner (Rohini Zone) & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
RTI filed on : 09/08/2007 ID No. 1520
PIO replied : 05/10/2007
First appeal filed on : 14/09/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 29/10/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 07/02/2008
The appellant had sought some information from MCD in respect of property located at WZ-40,
Channa Mal Park (Kaidar Bagh), East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi:
SL. INFORMATION SOUGHT PIO'S REPLY
1 The above said premises were sealed by Shri Sanjeev Dara, As some unauthorized
JE, MCD, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi without construction was carried out in
any information and prior notice. The reasons and Rules the property WZ-40 channa
under which our entire residential premises was sealed by mal place it was sealed U/s
Shri Sanjeev Dara my please be intimated. 345A of DMC Act. 1957.
2. A copy of the report of sealing of the above said premises Copy provided.
submitted by Shri Sanjeev Dara to the Higher Authorities
may please make available to us.
3 Copy of the notes of the relevant file of the above said Copy provided.
property pertaining to action taken on the sealing report on
the sealing report submitted by Shri Sanjeev Dara, Junior
Engineer may please be supplied to us.
4. The reason for not de-sealing of sealed residential premises As the property bearing no.
even after paying the amount of Rs. 64,570/- may please be WZ-40 channa mal park is
intimated. covered by Shri Rahish kumar.
5. A copy of the notes of the relevant file on which the case of No such note is there.
regularization of the above said property has been processed
after receiving the payment of Rs. 64,570/- by the MCD
against Receipt No. 457098 dated 17.4.2007 may please be
supplied to us along with the inspection of the said file.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“In view of report of the PIO, I am sure that the appellant must have received the required
information during that the intervening period of filing he appeal and passing this order. I find that the
information in this case was provided late. In this regard, PIO/DC(WZ) may ensure in future that the
prescribed time limit of providing the information so provided by the PIO, he may file afresh appeal
for consideration, if he desires so. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar Saini
Respondent : : Mr.Amar Pal Singh on behalf of Mr. Navin Verma PIO
The respondents state that they have provided all the information sought by the appellant.
The appellant pointed out that information on point 2 and 3 had not been provided. Even if a
report does not exist, the PIO should state so clearly. The PIO is being asked to supply the
information to the appellant on points 2 and 3.
It is evident that there is some issue about desealing of premises after regularization. Mr.
Manoj Verma EE building, has said that it is possible to do this, and has assured that he
would guide the appellant about this.
Decision:
The appeal is partially allowed.
The information on points 2 and 3 will be provided to the appellant before 5
December 2008.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26th November, 2008