CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001890/8614
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001890
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dheeraj Sehgal
C-2/2403, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Superintending Engineer (Building)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sadar Paharganj Road,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 02/03/2010
PIO replied : No reply
First appeal filed on : 03/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 14/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 07/07/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information in respect of building number 11099C, Doriwalan,
Near Manak Pura, New Delhi:
1. What is the status of Basement Floor, Ground Floor,1st Floor, 2nd Floor & 3rd
Floor? Whether the same have been sanctioned or not?
2. What is the covered area of each floor & also the total height of the building?
3. According to the records, what are the uses of the building i.e. residential or
commercial?
4. What is the status of the area in which the property is located (Doriwalan, near
Manakpura), whether it is residential or commercial as per the Delhi Master Plan,
2021?
5. Have the occupants/users of the above mentioned property, deposited the
conversion charges with MCD? If not, what action has been taken in the same
regard?
6. Is there any unauthorized construction beyond the sanctioned limit? If any, please
give the unauthorized construction booking number along with the action taken so
far by MCD, specifying the date of booking and the date of action taken, along
with the unauthorized construction area, floor- wise?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No reply was given by the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA ordered the PIO to furnish all information sought by the Appellant within 10
days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO even after the FAA’s order.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. As per the order
of the FAA dated 14/06/2010, the RTI application was filed with SE (Building), MCD,
SPZ, which was sent to EE (Building), MCD, SPZ. However, no reply was provided to
the Appellant despite a reminder issued to EE (Building) by SE (Building). The PIO was
directed to provide the Appellant with the requisite information available on record as per
the RTI Act within 10 working days. The PIO was further directed to send an explanation
to the FAA for not supplying the information to the Appellant within the prescribed time
limit.
From a perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the Appellant has not been
provided with the information requested for despite the order of the FAA. Further, no
explanation appears to have been sent by EE (Building) to the FAA for the delay caused
in providing the information. The Commission therefore directs the PIO/ SE (Building) to
provide the information requested for by the Appellant. Denial of information to an
Appellant under the RTI Act can only be done if what is sought is not “information” as
defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act. The PIO/SE has neither claimed that it is not “information” nor has he claimed that
it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO/ EE is directed to provide the information
requested by the Appellant before August 10, 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/EE is guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under Section 7(1) by not replying
within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act, despite a reminder from the SE.
The PIO/ EE has further refused to obey the orders of the FAA, which raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered
the information to be given. It appears that the PIO/ EE’s actions attract the penal
provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. A show cause notice is being issued to him,
and he is directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on August 18, 2010
at 10:30 am along with his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20(1). He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the Appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant and for not complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO/EE is directed to
inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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 per Section
7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
July 20, 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VN)