Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr.J.D. Kataria vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 3 August, 2010
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                                 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001756/8815
                                                                        Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001756

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. J. D. Kataria
9398 Tokri Walan, Azad Market,
Delhi – 110006.

Respondent : Mr. N. K. Gupta
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of Suprintending Engineer
Building Department
SP Zone, Idgah Road, Behind Sadar Police Station,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi.

RTI application filed on            :       05/04/2010
PIO replied                         :       24/05/2010
First appeal filed on               :       04/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order     :       No order.
Second Appeal received on           :       24/06/2010

S. No                           Information Sought                                Reply of the PIO
1.      The total coverage area of property no I 64 DB Gupta road as per the  The      PIO       (Health
        official records.                                                     department) requested
2.      The area of construction that was sanctioned. Whether the basement    the Appellant to come
        was also sanctioned.                                                  to the office of MCD to
3.      Whether the B form was submitted.                                     help      clarify       the
                                                                              information         sought
4.      The percentage of area wherein unauthorized construction has been     with  regard  to  query  no
        carried out.                                                          7.

5. a) Total no of times inspection of the said property has been carried
out. b) Name and designation of officials who were part of the For the rest of the
inspection team and the date of inspection. queries, the RTI

6. No of times sealing activity has been carried out. application was
Whether police assistance was sought. transferred to the office

7. Total revenue earned by the government for allowing the property to of Assistant
be used as a hotel. Commissioner/SPZ. No

8. Information should be provided in Hindi. information had been
provided by the PIO of

9. Copy of all the notices issued to the owner of the above mentioned
the o/o AC/SPZ.


Grounds for the First Appeal:

No information had been provided by the PIO.

Page 1 of 2

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr. J. D. Kataria;

Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE;

The RTI application was filed on 05/04/2010 hence the information should have been provided before
05/05/2010. Instead the PIO admits that the information was first sent to the appellant on 22/07/2010. The
appellant points out that there are following deficiencies in the information provided to him:
1- Query-3: Information has not been provided whether the ‘B’ Form has been submitted or not.
2- Query-7: How much fees were paid by the applicant for passing the plans.

The PIO states that the person responsible for providing the information late was Mr. S. L. Meena, Junior
Engineer whose assistance has been sought under Section (4) on 19/04/2010.


The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to give the information on the two points mentioned above to the
appellant before 20 August 2010.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed
PIO Mr. S. L. Meena, Junior Engineer within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO 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. It appears that the deemed 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.

Mr. S. L. Meena, Junior Engineer will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
06 September 2010 at 3.00pm 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.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is
directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.

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
03 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)

To, Mr. S. L. Meena, Junior Engineer through Mr. N. K. Gutpa, PIO & SE;

Page 2 of 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.150 seconds.