CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002120-002131, 002133-002185/4986
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002120-002131, 002133-002185
Appellant : Mr. Rajender Gupta
704, G.T. Road,
Shahadara, Delhi-110032
Respondent : Superintending Eng. I & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahadara South Zone
Delhi
Background
:
The Appellant filed 65 Appeals with the Commission with regard to 65 RTI Applications
he filed with the PIO & SE-I, MCD, Shahadara South Zone. He filed these RTI
Applications on various dates between March and May 2009. He had sought information
whether building plans had been approved for the construction on the 65 sites listed by
him. He had also sought information on whether any complaints had been received about
the ongoing construction at the sites identified by him, and whether any action had been
proposed or was being undertaken. He had sought information with respect to the
following sites which fall within the jurisdiction of the SE I, Shahdara South Zone:
1. 17/90 Geeta Colony, Delhi
2. A-64, Radheshyam Park Ext., Delhi
3. X-3741, Gali no. 7, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
4. 12/128 Geeta Colony, Delhi
5. 13/397 Near Shastri Park, Geeta Colony, Delhi
6. 13/133 Geeta Colony, Delhi
7. 7/47 Geeta Colony, Delhi
8. 12 Radheshyam Park, Delhi
9. 35 Radheshyam Park, Delhi
10. X-306 Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
11. Opposite X-923, New Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
12. Opposite X/3469, Gali no. 12, New Jain Market, Shanti Mohalla, Delhi
13. X-4028, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
14. 62 Radhe Puri Ext.-2 Main Road, Delhi
15. 639 (Opposite 637A) Gururam Das Pur, Delhi
16. A-14, Radhe Puri Ext.-2, Delhi
17. Adjacent to 118/1, Gali no. 5, Kishankunj, Delhi
18. 13/2 Radhe Puri Ext.-2, Delhi
19. A-22, Gali no. 6, Jagat Puri, Delhi
20. R-8, Ramesh Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
21. B-19, Guru Ram Das Nagar, Indra Market, Delhi
22. A-7/39, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
23. R-4, Ramesh Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
24. R-9, Ramesh Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
25. 805, Guru Ram Das Ext., Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
26. A-90, Gali No. 6, Jagat Puri, Delhi
27. F-60, Jagat Puri, Delhi
28. R-7, Ramesh Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
29. R-3, Ramesh Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
30. 14, Radhe Puri Ext.-2, Delhi
31. 4/1422, Shalimar Park, Bholanath Nagar, Delhi
32. F-79, Main Road, Jagat Puri, Delhi
33. G-16/C, Radhe Puri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
34. G-19, Radhe Puri, Delhi
35. 804, Guru Ram Das Ext., Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
36. Above ΒΌ Lal Quarter, Krishna nagar, Delhi
37. Adjacent to R-7/1, Ramesh Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi
38. Adjacent to A-7/42, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
39. Adjacent to G-19, Radhe Puri, Delhi
40. Adjacent to C-55, Purana Govind Pura, Delhi
41. Adjacent to B-47A, Jitar Nagar, Parwana Road, Delhi
42. Opposite H-83, Jagat Puri, Delhi
43. Adjacent to D-103/4, South Anarkali, Delhi
44. Adjacent to X-919, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
45. Adjacent to A-26, New Brijpuri, Delhi
46. Adjacent to 46B, Gali no. 4, Purana Govind Pura Ext. , Delhi
47. Opposite B-23, Gali no. 10, New Brijpuri, Delhi
48. Adjacent to 10/118 Geeta Colony, Delhi
49. Opposite 33, Purani Geeta Colony, Delhi
50. Adjacent to 64/1, South Anarkali, Delhi
51. Opposite 3/9, Geeta Colony, Delhi
52. Adjacent to 2/66, Geeta Colony, Delhi
53. Opposite 180-181, South Anarkali, Delhi
54. Opposite B-1/1, South Anarkali, Delhi
55. Opposite A-6, Jitar Nagar, Parwana Road, Delhi
56. Opposite A-1, Sarojini Nagar, Geeta Colony, Delhi
57. Adjacent to A-118, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Geeta Colony, Delhi
58. X/3994, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
59. 1347 Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
60. X-3625, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
61. 1556 Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
62. X-3625, Gali no.-5, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
63. Adjacent to A-88, Gali no.-6, Jagat Puri. , Delhi
64. 7/91 (B-27), Gali no.-7, Main Road beginning from Panchsheel Gali, Delhi
65. 27/113 Gali no.-6, Main Road, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi
He received the PIO’s replies on 17/07/2009, 31/07/2009 and 06/08/2009. The PIO’s
reply mainly stated in response to the Appellant’s questions that there was no information
on record in the office and that action will be taken on unauthorized construction as per
the rules. In some cases the PIO stated that he could not give information as the site had
not been properly identified by the Appellant. Since the information received was either
at variance with the ground realities, or no response was given, the Appellant had filed a
First appeal in all the cases. He did not receive a satisfactory response from the First
Appellant Authority and he then approached the Commission with 65 Second Appeals.
As all the Appeals concerned a similar subject matter, the Commission has decided to
dispose these Appeals together through a common order.
After registering the Second Appeals, from a perusal of the documents submitted by the
Appellant, the Commission decided that it should conduct an enquiry in the matter under
Section 18(2) of the RTI Act. A Joint Inspection of some of the properties in Shahadara
South Zone, Delhi was ordered. A notice in this regard was issued on 08/09/2009. As per
the direction of the Commission, a Joint Inspection was carried out by a team comprising
of Mr. Dhirendra Kumar (Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar, CIC), Mr. Rajendra
Gupta (Appellant), Mr. Ram Prakash (PIO & SE, MCD, Shahadara South Zone) and Mr.
O.P. Vimal (APIO & EE, MCD, Shahadara South Zone) on 15/09/2009. After the Joint
Inspection it was apparent that unauthorized construction was either in progress or had
been recently completed on most of the properties inspected in Shahadara South Zone,
Delhi. Some of the properties were buildings of four and five storeys and the people there
confirmed that the construction had been undertaken in the last six months. Therefore the
Commission directed the PIO to submit a reply before 22/09/2009.
The PIO has submitted an amended reply on 22/09/2009 after a survey of the properties
in which he has acknowledged the illegal construction activity at the sites. In the
amended reply submitted by the PIO on 22/09/2009, he admitted that construction work
was being undertaken in the different properties cited by the Appellant and that no map
had been passed by the MCD, Building Department and no permission had been given to
the construction. He further admitted that Complaint has been received regarding the
unauthorized construction but no action has been taken.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Gupta
Respondent: Mr. Ram Prakash, SE I & PIO, Mr. OP Vimal, APIO
The PIO admits that 65 buildings have come up where no plans were approved. Out of
these 65, only 4 or 5 properties have been booked as unauthorized construction. The
persons responsible to book the unauthorized construction are the Junior Engineers- Mr.
Manoj Shah and Mr. Manish Kr. Gupta. The PIO states that Mr. Manoj Shah is employed
on contract and Mr. Manish Kr. Gupta is an MCD employee. From what is being
described, it appears that even these 65 unauthorised constructions are unlikely to be
‘booked’ for over a year. The PIO was asked if these unauthorized constructions are
likely to be demolished. The PIO who is the Superintending Engineer very conveniently
states that he does not know what happens and that only the junior-most staff of MCD
has any knowledge of what is happening. The SE states that the demolition action is
taken up depending on the whim and will of the junior staff. The PIO states that he writes
a number of letters to the Executive Engineer (B) and no action is taken. The PIO states
that he has sought the information from EE (B) Mr. OP Vimal and that Mr. OP Vimal is
responsible for giving the information late.
The Commission views with great distress the fact that organized illegal construction is
being undertaken in the capital of this country apparently with the collusion of MCD and
perhaps other official bodies. This is a case where a citizen has taken the initiative to
bring to light illegal practices of a very large nature before the authorities. However, in
the last few months it is apparent that the MCD officials were interested only in covering
up those indulging in illegal building construction. This kind of construction can be a
very dangerous situation and can endanger the life of many citizens apart from reducing
the concept of planned development and the rule of law to a joke. The essence of
democracy is the concept that the citizen gives part of the sovereignty to the state in
return of which he gets the rule of law. Here the citizen has also come forward to enforce
the sovereignty and the rule of law but the official agencies have no interest in upholding
the rule of law. In such a situation, a citizen feels helpless and powerless. The
information that 65 illegal buildings have come up in a single zone has been exposed
through a citizen’s use of right to information. In other RTI Applications he has been
given evidence of another 54 illegal buildings and he claims to have brought to the notice
of the authorities another 90 buildings. A clear modus operandi which emerges in this
case is that an illegal building is constructed in 3 to 6 months and during this period
neither any cognizance of any complaints is taken nor any information provided under
the Right to Information Act. After the whole building is constructed it is probably
claimed that this is an old building and needs to be regularized. This Commission has no
power to enforce the rule of law but can only hope that all arms of governance would
take actions to ensure that illegal activities of this nature are brought to a stop
immediately. If this does not happen, it would indeed be very shameful and reflect on the
poor governance in the capital city of this country. The Commission hopes that the MCD
Commissioner would take cognizance of this and demonstrate that MCD does mean to
uphold the rule of law rather than collaborate with criminals.
Decision:
The 65 appeals are allowed.
The information has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO Mr. Ram Prakash and the APIO Mr. OP Vimal within 30
days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that
they are 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 their actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to them, and they are directed to give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
They will give their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 October, 2009.
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
30 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) RA