Mr. Kaliram Tomar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 August, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Kaliram Tomar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 August, 2009
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
                              Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
                                      Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                                           Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001543/4378
                                                                  Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001543
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                        :      Mr. Kaliram Tomar,
                                        House No. 1/4196, Ram Nagar Extn.
                                        Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi -110032.

Respondent                            :      Mr. N.K.Gupta
                                             Public Information Officer,
                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
                                             O/o The Superintending Engineer(B-I),
                                             Shahdara North Zone, Shahdara,
                                             Delhi - 110032.

RTI application filed on              :      18/02/2009
PIO replied                           :      19/05/2009
First appeal filed on                 :      13/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order       :      Not replied
Second Appeal received on             :      22/06/2009

      S. No.                  Information Sought                           The PIO replied
         1   That the development had been made in Hind              No.
             Pocket Book, Delshad Garden, had passed any
             Map from MCD.
        2.   On the land (1200 Sq Yard) of Hind Pocket Book          No.

a Raghuvanshi Motors showroom has been made.

Has taken any recognition from the MCD?

3. Is it true that commissioner had inspected Hind No information is available
Pocket Book in August, 2008 and founded in this regard.
illegal?

4 Any information had received of illegal No.
construction in Hind Pocket Book.

5 That the Courts Commissioner had founded Record is not available in this
illegal construction in Hind Pocket Book. Delhi office. because of Zone
Govt. has booked in the list for destroyed it. transferred.
6 Is it true that this property is not destroyed due to It is not true.
pressure of The Commissioner of MCD,
Shahdara North Zone.

7 Is it true that a complaint has been filed by Court No such information has
Commissioner in High Courts regarding illegal been received in this office.
construction in Hind Pocket Book.

8 Is it true that Court Commissioner had been As above.
surveyed in Hind Pocket Book, there was not any
Raghuvanshi Motors showroom.

Grounds for first appeal:

Desired information had not been received by the Appellant.

Order of First Appellate Authority:

Not replied.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

Incomplete/falls Information received in spite of the Orders of Dy. Commissioner/First
Appellate Authority vides its Orders dated 15/05/2009.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Kaliram Tomar
Respondent: Mr. S.K.Sindhwani on behalf of PIO Mr. N.K.Gupta and Mr. D.S.Verma (AE)
The Appellant has complaint about a large workshop which according to him has been constructed in
unauthorized manner in the name of Raghuvanshi Motors at Hindi Pocket Books, G.T.Road, Dilshad
Garden, Shahadara Delhi- 110095. He alleges that this is been done with the collusion of various
Government Officers. He has been filing complaints and contends that the Court Commissioner had
inspected the site in August 2008. It is significant that though the appellant had asked in this RTI dated
18/02/2009 then PIO Mr. K.P.Singh had given a reply stating virtually that there are no information on
18/05/2009. The Respondent admits that the structure was in existence but they do not know whether
the building was approved and authorized. Mr. D.S.Verma has taken the trouble of finding out that a
license has been issued by the licensing department to M/s Raghuvanshi Motors for which a
showcause notice has been issued. Mr. S.K.Sindhwani, EE states that the responsibility for the delay
in providing the information was of Mr. Y.S.Sanger the then AE of the area. Mr. Sindhwani is directed
to send papers to show that the RTI application had indeed been given to Mr. Y.S.Sanger before 20
August 2009 to the Commission.

No significant information has been provided and the Appellant’s charge appears to have some
substance. The Commission directs the Dy. Commissioner Shahdara North to investigate in this and
provide the copies of the following to the Appellant and the Commission;
1- Copy of approved building plan of the place.

2- Copy of the license issued to M/s Raghuvanshi Motors.
3- If no building plan has bee approved a report on how the license could have been issued in
unauthorized structure.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The information described above will be provided to the Appellant and the Commission by the Dy.
Commissioner Mr. Azeemul Haq, Shahdara North, Delhi before 20 August 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 deemed PIO Mr. Y.S.Sanger 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 27 August 2009 at 11.30am
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, 2005.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
6 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)

CC:

Mr. Y.S.Sanger through Mr. S.K.Sindhwani, EE Shahdara North, Delhi

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *