CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000638/7847
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000638
Appellant : Mr. Ishan Pandit,
91-G, Aram Bagh,
Paharganj, New Delhi-110055.
Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sharma PIO & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara South Zone,
Behind Karkarduma Court, Shahdara
New Delhi-110016
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2009
PIO replied : 20/01/2010
First Appeal filed on : 24/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on : 09/03/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 22/03/2010
Hearing Held on : 23/04/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought clear information on following points(out of eight):
4. Is there any provision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi to keep watch on the
compliance of the declaration given by the occupant/ owner in the form of affidavit/
undertaking for not to misuse of premises? Provide the copy of rules which are meant to
keep the watch on misuse of premises.
7. Provide the copy of the notices served to Shop no. 1 to 72 (Ground floor to third floor)
along with the affidavit / undertaking submitted by these shopkeepers (no. 1 to 72)
against notice of Building Deptt.
PIO's Reply:
4. There is provision to regularize the misuse of the premises by depositing convention
charges, if the said premises come on notified Road as per M. P. 2021
7. Record can be seen at any official day in working hours.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No reply within stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Not replied within and Reply to question no. 4 & 7 was not clear.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 23 April 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ishan Pandit;
Respondent: Mr. H. S. Singh, APIO on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar, PIO & SE-I;
By Mistake the notice of hearing has been forwarded to PIO/SE-I by PIO/SE-II. The RTI
application has been filed by PIO/SE-II and the information has been provided by PIO/SE-II.
The Appellant is dissatisfied with the information hence the notice of hearing was sent to
PIO/SE-II who has mistakenly asked PIO/SE-I to appear for the hearing. The matter is
adjourned.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 25 May 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ishan Pandit;
Respondent: Mr. Pushkar Sharma PIO & SE-II;
The PIO admits that the information has been provided for the RTI application only on
20/01/2010. The information provided has certain deficiencies as under:
1- Query-4: Copy of the rules/office order/notification by which misuse of premises
are regularized.
2- Query-7 & 8: The PIO is directed to provide copies of notices served on the shops and
affidavits submitted by the shop keepers. In case no notices served or affidavits not
received for certain shops this should be stated.
The PIO shows that the RTI application which has been sent by speed post on 18/11/2009 has
been received by the PIO on 10/12/2009. The Appellant had sent the RTI application by Speed
post no. ED937095709IN and sent the fees of Rs.10/- by Indian Postal Order. It appears that the
MCD as an organization took 20 days to ensure that the PIO received the information. In view of
this the appellant has had to unnecessary file an appeal and has received the information late. In
view of this the Commission sees that the appellant has been put to unnecessary loss and
detriment because of MCD’s inefficient process. The Commission directs the PIO to ensure that
a cheque of Rs. 1000/- is sent to the Appellant as compensation.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 15 June 2010.
The PIO will also ensure that a cheque of Rs.1000/- is sent to the appellant as
compensation before 20 June 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
25 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj