CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000555/7470
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000555
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mohit Sharma,
59-D, Pocket-J&K,
Dishad Garden,
New Delhi - 110095
Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sharma
PIO & Superintending Engineer-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara South Zone,
Shahdara, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 23-11-2009
PIO replied : 12-02-2010
First appeal filed on : 18-01-2010
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal received on : 05-03-2010
Sl. Information sought. PIO's reply
1. How many complaints for unauthorised construction have been received in This is matter of record and can
the office of Shahdara (South) Zone from 1 January, 2008 till date? be seen at any official working
day in the Office of Bldg Deptt
Shd (S).
2. A list of these complaints with: -do-
1. Address of the impugned property
2. date of receipt of complaint
3. Names of AE and EE to whom the complaints were marked
4. Date of marking the same
5. Action taken on these complaints
Applicant wants to inspect these files too.
3. Applicant wants to inspect the daily Despatch and Receipt register of the -do-
office of DC, SE and EE from 1 Jan, 2008 to till date.
4. How many properties have been booked by the department for -do-
unauthorised constructions from 1 Jan, 2008 to till date?
Applicant wants to inspect these properties and related files.
5. How many properties have been sealed by the department due to -do-
unauthorised constructions from 1 Jan, 2008 to till date?
6. How many properties have been demolished by the department due to -do-
unauthorised constructions from 1 Jan, 2008 till date?
Applicant wants to inspect these properties and related files.
How many properties have not been booked/demolished/sealed by the
7. department due to unauthorised constructions even after receiving -do-
complaint for the same? Addresses of such properties.
Applicant wants to inspect all these properties and related files.
How many owners of properties have been given notice due to
8. unauthorised constructions on their properties from 1 Jan, 2008 till date? -do-
Applicant wants to inspect all these properties and related files.
How many applications have been received and approved by the
9. department for approval of maps from 1 Jan, 2008 till date? -do-
Applicant wants to inspect all these files.
10. How many registers and files are being maintained for keeping the records
of unauthorised construction and action taken on these constructions? -do-
Applicant wants to inspect all these files.
Applicant wants the certified copy of file noting of all the officers made on
11. the files of the complaint for unauthorised construction. -do-
Applicant wants to inspect all these files.
How many sealed properties have been de-sealed and allowed to start -do-
12. construction from I Jan, 2008 till date?
1. Address of the property
2. Date of its sealing
3. Date of its de-sealing
4. Reasons for de-sealing
13. Is the construction of these de-sealed properties being carried out in an
authorized manner now? -do-
Applicant wants to inspect the papers related to de-sealed properties.
Order of the FAA:
No order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
1. PIO did not transfer applicant’s RTI to PIO-II till date.
2. When the applicant went to collect information from EE-II (PIO), the latter misbehaved and
refused to give information.
3. No inspection allowed till date.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Mohit Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Pushkar Sharma, PIO & Superintending Engineer-II;
The PIO claims that he had sent the information on 22/01/2010 offering an inspection of the
records. It is evident that the inspection was not occurred so far since the appellant and the PIO were not
able to arrive at a mutually convenient date. The Commission directs an inspection of the records on
04 May 2010 at 12.00noon in the office of Executive Engineer(B-II) Mr. D. P. Sharma (Shahdara South
Zone).
The PIO states that because of multiple transfers it is difficult to identify the person responsible for
replying late. He also states that there is shortage of staff. In view of this the Commission directs the PIO
to compensate the Appellant for the loss and determent suffered by him of having to filed this appeal
before the Commission. The Commission directs that the compensation of Rs.2000/- should be paid to the
Appellant as compensation.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the records as directed above to the Appellant.
He will give photocopies of the records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 300 pages.
The PIO is also directed ensure that the compensation of Rs.2000/- is sent to the Appellant before
10 May 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
15 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj