CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000536, 000534, 000533, 000538, 000607, 000604/12253
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000536, 000534, 000533, 000538, 000607, 000604
Appellant : Mr. Gajinder Kaushik
102 vill- khanpur
Near Pandit Choupal
New Delhi - 110062
Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Taneja
PIO & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The SE - II, South Zone,
Green park, New Delhi - 110016
RTI application filed on : 05/07/2010
PIO replied : 27/07/2010
First Appeal filed on : 07/10/2010
FAA's order : 10/11/2010
Hearing Notice Issued on : 04/04/2011
Date of Hearing : 04/05/2010
Information Sought:-
The appellant wants the following information:-
1) On dated 09/12/2009 the complaint was made against the house no. 102 gaon khanpur, what action has
been taken against it till 25/02/2010. provide the information for the following:-
a) Whether the above complain is correct?
b) Whether the property was demolished by you?
c) Whether every thing was checked properly before the demolishment of the concerned property?
Or whether it was done under some ones pressure or for few money?
d) Whether your department is capable of finding the illegal construction or whether it takes the help
from other department?
e) At which level of your department , the complaint regarding the same is investigated and the
officer of which level investigates it ?
2) A complaint was made dated 19/04/2010 to your department for the house no. 100, gaon khanpur.
Against whom the officers of your department investigated on 19/05/2010 and gave the griviances that the
mentioned property is illegal and it will be demolished as well but nothing has been done against the same
till now. Why so? Provide the information for the following:-
a) Whether your department has some kind of fear for taking action against the same property?
b) Whether no one has the right to file a complain regarding the same for getting the justice?
c) Whether your department needs some money for taking action against the same?
d) Whether your department has no right to take the action against the same?
e) Whether the complain has been looked after by some one in your department or it has been
thrown in the dustbin?
f) When will your department take action against the same?
g) Whether your department is waiting for some special person or special department or special
officer to take action against the same?
3) The complain made against house no. 100 for illegal construction dated 19/04/2010 and 19/05/2010,
copies of whose has been attached. Whether it has been found that it is illegal, if yes, who will take the
action against the same?
4) Why your department is not taking action against the same?
5) The investigation against the illegal construction complaints was valid up to 25/02/2010, whether it was
banned after that date.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by PIO.
Reply from the PIO:-
The appellant was provide with the point wise reply to the queries:-
In view to 1 a) no information is available.
b) no demolition programme was made against the same by the department.
c) same as b).
d) it does not comes under the department.
e) same as d).
In view to 2 (a to g) this belongs to the maintenance department.
In view to 3,4,5 same as 2
FAA's Order:-
Contents of the appeal were examined. The appellant was aggrieved by non- receipt of information from
PIO/SE-II. Appellant filed 4 separate RTF applications in PIO/SE-II office on different dates.
PIO/SE-II stated that requisite information has already been issued to appellant vide letters dt. 24/9/2010,
21/7/2010, 29/7/2010 and 30/6/2010 respectively copy of which were produced by PIO.
Copies of reply issued by the PIO are enclosed for information of appellant. In case he is not satisfied with
the reply, he can file a fresh first appeal later. No directions are issued to PIO. Appeal stands disposed off
accordingly.
In case the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the 1st Appellate Authority, he may approach the
CIC within 90 days of this decision as per the provisions of Sec.19 of RTI Act 2005.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Gajinder Kaushik;
Respondent: Mr. P. V. Singh, EE on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Taneja, PIO & SE-II;
The Appellant has been provided the information available as per records. The Appellant on
25 May 2011 from 10.30.AM onwards.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 25 May 2011 from
10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO/SE-II. In case there are any records or file which the appellant
believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of
inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records do not
exist.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO/SE-II is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the
Appellant on 25 May 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies
of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
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
04 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)