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


Central Information Commission
Mr.Naveen Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 December, 2010
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003031/10497
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003031
    Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kumar
F-180/G-1, Dilshad Colony
Delhi-110095

Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer-II (West Zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of the Superintending Engineer-1(W. Zone),
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027

RTI application filed on : 19/05/2010
PIO replied : 10/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 12/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 26/10/2010

Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1 The procedure fixed by the MCD (West Zone) for dealing with The procedure is fixed by the
complaints related to illegal unauthorized construction. Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act
2 Number of complaints regarding illegal construction that have been The information sought is
transferred from the MCD Headquarters to the Rajouri Garden office very detailed. It can be
for suitable action from 1/10/2009 to 1/05/2010 including date, diary obtained from the office from
number and other particulars of the complainants. 3.00pm to 5.00pm.
3 Number of complaints regarding illegal construction that have been Same as above
received directly by the MCD office Rajouri Garden during the period
1/10/2009 to 1/05/2010 for suitable action.
4 Number of complaints regarding illegal construction on which the Same as above.

MCD (West Zone) Rajouri Garden has taken action and the number of
pending cases.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Incomplete, dissatisfactory and misleading information given by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The revised reply to point number 1 to be provided to the appellant. The appellant may come and meet the
PIO on any working day from 3.00pm to 5.00pm regarding points 2, 3 and 4.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Mohal Lal representing Mr. Naveen Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. T.P. Puri, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & SE-II;

The PIO has stated that there is practice that is followed when complaints of illegal constructions
are received. The PIO is directed to provide this to the Appellant. The Appellant would like to inspect the
records of complaints received during the period 01/10/2009 to 01/05/2010 on 23/12/2010 from 2.00PM
onwards.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant before
23 December 2010.

The PIO is also directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant
on 23/12/2010 from 02.00PM onwards. The PIO is directed to give attested photocopies of
records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
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
20 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.118 seconds.