CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001350/13690
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001350
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Gupta,
704, G.T. Road, Shahdara,
New Delhi- 32
Respondent : Mr. Naurang Singh
Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer (WZ)- I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
West Zone, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 23/02/2011
PIO replied : 01/04/2011
First Appeal filed on : 24/03/2011
Order of First Appellate Authority : 05/05/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/05/2011
The Appellant has sought information regarding the illegal construction taking place at D-276, Tagore
Garden in New Delhi.
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Was there any action taken on the basis of the complaint filed by the Appellant? The property has
Provide the present day situation of the plot. been inspected by
2. Is the construction of property on that plot is not illegal? Or is there any plan of the plot the MCD as per
which is under construction that is accepted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi? Or section 343 and 344
any other acceptance is given for the construction of the plot? If yes, then who is and this property is
responsible to see whether the construction is going on in accordance with the map? booked as per file
According to Ministry of Urban Rural Development and Poverty Elevation has notified no.
(Sub sec- letter no.- J- 13036/3/96-DD 11 B date- 28/8/2000) every field officer have B/UC/WZ/I/11/104
an obligation to maintain diary and to report to supervisory officer( a photocopy of this) dated 28.03.2011.
which the field officer have inspected of that plot. Provide the Information and
photocopy of the document.
3. If there is plan of the property, then is it taken care that the doors and windows are
open outwards toward the street or not? Provide the related information.
4. Is the construction of the building is accordance with the Indian Electricity regulations There is no
that the building is within the minimum distance from the voltage lines or not? Provide information available
the information as per the record.
5. According to Sat Bak rules, is the plot which is left out is a part of public place or not? Sat bak are part of
Provide the information property
6. Is the map of the concerned plot is passed for making posh building , for making flats, Same as query no. 1
or for carrying out professional activities? Provide the information
7. If the concerned plot is book, then in relation to this is there any demolition order is Same as above
issued or not? And When the proceedings will take place by the prosecution? Or are
there any other proceedings which took place? The information is available on the
internet. Provide a copy of it along with information.
8. Is there any orders passed to regional station house officer to stop the illegal Same as above
construction at the site or till when it will be passed?
9. According to the bye laws, when did the building maker provide a written information Same as above
to the Delhi Municipal corporation to start the construction of the map passed building?
And when did the building maker gave written information to the MCD when the
construction reached at plinth label and to which officer? Provide the diary number
along with a copy and provide the information also.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant filed his first appeal when he did not receive the PIO’s Reply within the time span of 30
days and when the PIO replied to his queries the Appellant finds the information as wrong and
incomplete.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA ordered that the PIO should provide complete information to the Appellant within 15 days.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant is not provided with complete information despite the orders of FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Vipin Kumar, EE(B-I) on behalf of Mr. Naurang Singh, Public Information Officer
& Superintending Engineer (WZ)- I;
The Appellant has sent a letter to the Commission seeking adjournment. The Commission does
not accept the plea for adjournment. The respondent states that after the order of the FAA he
personally inspected the properties and has sent the information to the Appellant on 02/06/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
It appears that the information available on the records has been provided.
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
27 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)