CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001676/4613
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001676
Appellant : Mr. I. J. Bhalla,
House No. 20-B, MIG, DDA Flats,
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi - 110007
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The Executive Engg.(Bldg.)Sadar,
Pahar Ganj Zone, Delhi-110006
RTI application filed on : 30/01/2009
PIO replied : 17/03/2009
First Appeal filed on : 02/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 20/05/2009
Second Appeal received on : 09/07/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. (a) The rule of law or provision of DMC Act, or (a) Please refer to B.B.L. clause 6, 4, 1 from sub-
Bldg. Bye-Laws framed there-under or any clause (a) to (j).
directive as issued by the Govt./ competent
authority under which any alteration or addition
or addition into a building does not form part of
the construction activity, whether authorized or
otherwise.
2. (a) The rule of law or provision of DMC Act, Generally D.D.A. flats are constructed with
1957 or Bidg. Bye-Laws framed there-under or R.C.C. framed structure i.e. a frame work of
any directive as issued by the Competent R.C.C. column, beams, foundation footings &
authority under which the activity comprising R.C.C. slabs. Thereafter any wall raised in
removal/puncturing of 9" load bearing walls is between R.C.C. portal frame is called a filler wall
allowed or permissible. but not a load bearing wall.
(a) The removal of any filler wall cannot have any
impact/effect on the R.C.C. frame work. The
question of regulation/provision/guide lines etc.
does not arise in this matter.
3. The names and designation of all those officials As per record available in the building deptt.
signing the letter no. 163/EE(Bldg.)/CLZ/2007 S.P.Zone which was handed over by the C.L.
dated 15-01-2007 forwarded with letter no. Zone Letter no.163/EE (Bldg.)/CLZ/2007 dated
48/DC/CLZ/2007 dated 16-01-2007. 15-01-2007 was not handed over to this zone. So
the names & designation of the officials signing
this letter is not available in the record of building
deptt. S. P. Zone.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The entire information supplied by the PIO had been found vague, misleading/ misrepresentation of facts.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The case was taken up on 20/05/2009. The PIO was directed to provide the information within 10
working days. The Appeal was accordingly disposed off.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information had been received after the order of FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. I. J. Bhalla
Respondent: Mr. Mittal representing PIO-Civil Lines Zone and
Mr. A.K.Singh – APIO, Sadar Paharganj Zone
Mr. Mittal states that the area has just been transferred from SP Zone to Civil Lines Zone about a
fortnight back. He therefore is not aware of this matter. The Appellant pointed out that the information
required by him now is as follows:
1- Whether removal of nine inch load-bearing wall is permissible. If there is any provision in
MCD Act and Building Bye-laws under which this is permissible this should be given. If there
is no such provision this should stated clearly.
2- Names and designations of the officials who signed the letter number
163/EE(BLDG)/CLZ/2007 dated 15/01/2007 forwarded with letter number 48/BC/CLZ/2007
dated 16/01/2007.
The then PIO Mr. C.B.Singh has not provided the information inspite of the order of the First Appellate
Authority.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Mr. Mittal is directed to give information as described above to the Appellant before 10 September
2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO Mr. C.B.Singh is guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within
30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior
officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First
Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed 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 15 September 2009 at 12.00pm
alongwith 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.
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
31 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)RA