CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003069/6501
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003069
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Gupta
Editor 704, G.T.Road,
Shahadara, Delhi – 110032
Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar
Public Information Officer & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara North, Zonal Office Building,
Keshav Chowk, G.T.Road, Delhi – 110032
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2009
PIO replied : 09/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 23/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 08/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 22/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 21/01/2010
The Appellant had sought information regarding unauthorized construction on property no.
1/2573, Ram Nagar, Shahdara North Zone:
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether permission for construction was given by As per records Building
the department? Copy of the Layout plan of the Department had not given
construction? Give copy of plan. permission nor any lay out plant
was passed by the MCD.
2. Whether fee for layout plan was paid? If yes give As Sl. 1 above.
mode of payment and details?
3. If no permission was granted then what action MCD Action will be taken as per MCD
has taken against this construction? Act.
4. Had MCD booked this construction for demolition? As Sl. 3 above.
If yes then by which date demolition will be
completed?
5. If there is any problem in demolition had you sealed As Sl. 3 above.
the premises?
6. If permission for construction was given then have As Sl. 3 above.
you verified whether the construction is as per
plan/rule? If no what action MCD has taken against
it?
7. If permission for construction was given then who is Junior Engineer is Mr. Rahul
the Officer responsible to report the status of Verma no official mobile is given
Page no. 1 of 3
construction? Give name of the officer/Engineer with to Mr. Verma.
mobile number.
8. Give name of the officers to whom the above Assistant Engineer is Mr. Sohan
officer/engineer reported regarding construction. Lal.
9. What is the area of the construction? Property relates to Tax
Department.
10. What was the present status of the building when this As Sl. 9 above.
complaint was made i.e. how many rooms/floors
were built.
11. Out of the approved are what was the permission area As Sl. 1 above.
for construction?
12. How many floors, rooms, kitchens, bathrooms etc As Sl. 1 above.
were permitted?
13. Whether this construction is on the part of the As Sl. 1 above.
property?
14. Whether any complaint was made against this No complaint received in this
construction give copy of such complaint and action regard.
taken on complaints?
15. Give name and mobile number of the officers Mr. Sohan Lal (M): 9717788223,
involved in the construction? Assistant Engineer and Mr. Rajul
Verma, Junior Engineer.
First Appeal:
No action was taken on complaints nor information was provided.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
False information was provided by the PIO after lapse of 30 days.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. Arun Kumar, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
The RTI application was filed on 03/08/2009 and the reply has been given on
29/10/2009. The person responsible for the delay is Mr. Rahul Verma, Junior Engineer who had
the RTI application for 78 days before giving the reply.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the deemed PIO Mr. Rahul Verma, Junior Engineer within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Mr. Rahul Verma,
Junior Engineer is 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.
Page no. 2 of 3
It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A
showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Rahul Verma, Junior Engineer will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 23 February 2010 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant
the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear
before the Commission with him.
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
21 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)
CC:
To,
Mr. Rahul Verma,
Junior Engineer (in EE-Building-II)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi
Page no. 3 of 3