CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001397/6403Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001397
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Complainant : Mr. Naresh Kumar Saxena,
House No 3057, Kuchha Raja Sohan Lal,
Bazar Sita Ram,
Delhi- 110006.
Respondent 1) : Mr. Hanumant Trivedi
JE (Project)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
City Zone, Multi Level
Underground Parking, Asaf Ali Road,
Delhi.
Respondent 2) : Mr. Vikas Meena
JE (Building)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
City Zone, Multi Level
Underground Parking, Asaf Ali Road,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2009
PIO replied : No reply.
First Appeal filed on : 03/09/2009
Complaint filed on : 09/10/2009
Complaint notice issued on : 14/10/2009
Hearing Notice Issued on : 14/12/2009
Date of Hearing : 15/01/2010
Information Sought (with reference to complaint filed by the Complainant on 11/08/1992 to the
Chief Zonal Officer MCD, Minto Road about illegal construction carried out by Shri Shyam
Sundar in the second floor of house no 3057).
a) Name of officer who examined the complaint.
b) File notings after inspection of the property and examination of the complaint.
c) Action initiated by MCD.
d) Date when Mr Sundar had sought permission from MCD for construction of parapet wall in
the second floor.
e) Copy of letter of Mr Sundar to MCD wherein he had sought permission for the construction of
the parapet wall and the height of the parapet which he had sought permission.
f) Name of officer who examined the application.
g) File notings of the officer after inspection of the site and inspection report.
Page no. 1 of 3
h) Rules and regulations followed by MCD for allowing the construction of parapet wall in the
second floor.
i) Copy of sanction letter issued by MCD to Mr Sundar.
j) The date when parapet wall was constructed as per MCD records.
k) Whether Mr Devendra Singh (JE) was associated with inspection of the above site or sanction
for construction of the parapet wall.
l) Details of punishment handed out to Mr Devendra Singh (JE) for corruption related issues.
Reply of the PIO
No reply given by the PIO.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No information provided by PIO.
Grounds for Complaint:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO.
Submission received from the PIO:
The Executive Engineer (Building, city zone) has highlighted the shortage of staff as the reason
for delay. The letter containing information to the queries of the Complainant was send out on
6/11/2009. The PIO has given point wise reply to the queries:
i) The information was not available with the building department.
ii) Same as above.
iii) Construction of parapet wall does not come under the purview of unauthorized construction.
Therefore no action was taken by MCD.
iv) Permission was not required to construct a parapet wall.
v) Not applicable.
vi) Same as above.
vii) Same as above.
viii) Same as above.
ix) As per clause 6.4.1 of DMC Act.
x) Not required.
xi) The information was not available with the building department.
xii) The record was not available with the building department.
xiii) Same as above.
Submission received from the Complainant
The Complainant has highlighted corruption that is rampant in MCD and has sought action
against the guilty.
Relevant Facts
that emerged during the Hearing on 15 January 2010:
“The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Naresh Kumar Saxena;
Respondent: Mr. Ansar Alam, EE(B) on behalf of Mr. Sushil Kumar, PIO & SE;
The Respondent admits that the RTI Application was received on 06/08/2009 but the first
reply was sent on 06/11/2009. The person responsible for this delay was primarily Mr. Hanumant
Trivedi, JE Building, who received the RTI Application on 17/08/2009 but sent the reply on
06/11/2009 stating that the information was not available and that he was transferring the RTI
application to SE, Sadar Paharganj Zone. No effort has been made by the PIO to see if any
Page no. 2 of 3
information has been sent by SE(Sadar Paharganj Zone). The Complainant states that he has not
received any information.”
Commission’s Decision on 15 January 2010:
“The Complaint is allowed.
Mr. Ansar Alam is directed to obtain the information from wherever it is and send it to
the Complainant before 30 January 2010. Since the matter pertains to 1992, in case there is no
information on records this should be stated.”
Facts leading to Showcause:
The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Hanumant Trivedi, JE Building within 30 days as required by the law. From the
facts before the Commission it appeared that the deemed PIO Mr. Hanumant Trivedi, JE
Building was 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. Hence a
showcause notice was issued to him, and he was directed give his reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on him on 11 February 2010 at 2.30pm.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 11 February 2010:
“The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Hanumant Trivedi, JE(Project) MCD-the then deemed PIO;
The then deemed PIO & JE (B), Mr. Hanumant Trivedi stated that his transfer order from
Building Department to Project Department had been issued on 03/06/2009 but he was relieved
from the Building Department on 29/11/2009. He has further stated that he had taken assistance
of Mr. Vikas Meena in gathering the information which was sought in the RTI application dated
03/08/2009. He has also submitted a copy of the fresh reply dated 29/01/2010, which was
provided to the Complainant in compliance of the Commission’s order dated 15/01/2010. On
perusal of the papers, the Commission observed that the reply is totally wrong and misleading.
Hence another showcause notice was issued to Mr. Hanumat Trivedi and Mr. Vikas Meena, and
they were directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not
be levied on them on 18 February 2010 at 10.30a.m.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 February 2010:
“The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Naresh Kumar Saxena;
Respondent: Mr. Hanumant Trivedi, JE(Project) MCD-the then deemed PIO and Mr. Vikas
Meena, JE(B), MCD, City Zone-the deemed PIO;
The Complainant had submitted a document i.e. a photocopy of a certified copy obtained from
the Civil Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi dated 19/08/1992, which shows that Mr. Shyam Sunder, r/o
House no. 3075, Kucha Mohanlal, Sitaram Bazar, Delhi had sought permission for repairing the
wall and the ceiling of House no. 3057 and also praying for inspection of House no. 3057 from
Dangerous Building Department, MCD, City Zone. The document is bearing a receiving seal of
MCD, City Zone dated 19/08/1992 and also bearing a note that “the site was inspected, the
parapet wall could be constructed and the repairing of wall and the ceiling was permitted and
there was no illegal construction going on, repairing is under BBL 6.4.1.” and the said note was
signed by Mr. Devender Singh, JE, Dangerous Building Department.
Page no. 3 of 3
The deemed PIO Mr. Hanumant Trivedi and Mr. Vikas Meena states that the above said
document seems to be false and forged and further stated that there was no JE named Mr.
Devender Singh in city Zone during year 1992 as per their knowledge.
There is no clear evidence to show whether the abovesaid document is false and forged.
However, looking at the circumstances of this case the Commission directs both the deemed
PIOs Mr. Hanumant Trivedi and Mr. Vikas Meena to file a sworn affidavit stating that the
abovesaid document is false and forged. The Commission further directs that if the deemed PIOs
consider the abovesaid document as genuine and that document is available on record then they
should give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on
them under Section 20 (1) & (2) for not providing the correct information to the Complainant.
Both the deemed PIOs are directed to provide the affidavit as stated above to the Complainant
before 04 March 2010.
The Commission directs Mr. Hanumant Trivedi and Mr. Vikas Meena to appear before the
Commission on 04/03/2010 at 04:00 pm along with their written submissions to show cause why
penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20 of the RTI Act. They are directed to
produce before the Commission any document they may have relied on in their written
submissions. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information
who have not been included in this show cause notice, you are directed to serve this show cause
to them and direct them to appear before the Commission on 04/03/2010 along with them.
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
18 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RR)
Page no. 4 of 3