Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Birinder Singh vs O/O The Superintending Engineer on 10 February, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr. Birinder Singh vs O/O The Superintending Engineer on 10 February, 2010
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                             Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                     Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                                  Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003252/6766
                                                                        Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003252

Appellant                                   :       Mr. Birinder Singh,
                                                    Jt General Manager (PS),
                                                    IFFCO C-1, Saket Place,
                                                     New Delhi -110017.

Respondent                                  :      Public Information Officer
                                                   O/o the Superintending Engineer,
                                                   Karol Bagh Zone, MCD
                                                   Nigam Bhawan, D.B. Gupta Road,
                                     Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005.

RTI application filed on                    :       21/08/2009
PIO replied                                 :       05/10/2009
First Appeal filed on                       :       12/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order             :       04/11/2009
Second Appeal Received on                   :       24/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on                   :       09/01/2010
Hearing Held on                             :       10/02/2010

Information Sought:
After reply of the PIO, Appellant had objection on what information provided in respect of following:
 Sl.No Information Sought                         Reply of PIO
 1.      Daily progress against Appellant's The Demolition Orders were passed on
         complaint w.e.f. 18/07/2009 till date. 17/07/2009 and the file as given to
                                                  Office    incharge     (Building)   for
                                                  execution of demolition orders as per
                                                  policy and as such, question of daily
                                                  progress does not arise.
 3.      Intimate the periods when this case As above.
         was lying with which officer.
 4.      What action was taken by concerned As above.
         officials on this case during that
         period on what dates.
 5.      Give the proof of receipt and dispatch As above.
         of this case in the offices of each of
         these officials.
 6.      Identify MCD official whose actions There is no delay in demolishing the
         has caused delay in demolishing the unauthorized construction.
         property.
 7.      What action will be taken by MCD Question of taking against officials
         against erring officials.                does not arise as there is no erring
                                                  official
  8.       Provide Timeframe for demolishing Demolition action was taken on
          the said unauthorized construction. 23/09/2009 and demolished the parapet
                                              walls and chajja on back side of Second
                                              floor and chajja of Mumty and parapet
                                              walls on the Second floor were
                                              demolished and punctured in P. No. A-
                                              71/2, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi

Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information.
Point no.1, 3, 4, 5:    Date wise progress had not been provided.
6& 7               :    Appellant had requested to identify MCD officials whose action
       had resulted in u/c still existing at site despite programme of                                        demolition
and availability of police force.
8.                 :    Timeframe for demolition of balance u/c to be provided.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
PIO submitted that he had supplied the information as per the record available in the department.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
As in First Appeal.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr K K Loomba on behalf of the Appellant Mr Birinder Singh
Respondent: Mr Kaftan (deemed PIO).

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Mr A K Singh (Dy Commissioner) has passed a meaningless order on
04/11/2009 merely recording that the Appellant stated that he had not received the complete information and
the PIO submitted that the information had been supplied as per the records. The FAA must come to a
conclusion of whether the PIO has supplied the complete information or not which he has failed to do.

The PIO has provided information but has now been directed to provide detailed information giving photo
copies of file notings and notes on the matter. The Appellant states that MCD has been taking some half
hearted measures against unauthorized construction. The Respondent states that a second floor has been
constructed in an unauthorized matter. The PIO states that they are going to take appropriate action before 15
March 2010.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The information as directed above will be provided to the Appellant before 25 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