CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000277/11741
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000277
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Chopra
F-180/G-1
Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095
Respondent : Mr. A.K. Mittal
Superintendent Engineer-I & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi-110024
RTI application filed on : 27.11.2010
PIO replied on : 06.01.2011
First appeal filed on : 12.01.2011
First Appellate Authority order : 17.01.2011
Second Appeal received on : 28.01.2011
S.No Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. The officer who is presently dealing with my complaint. At present Shri Rahul Verma,
JE (Civil) is dealing complaints
related to Building Department
under the jurisdiction of Nehru
Nagar, New Delhi, where
VlMHANS Hospital situated.
2. The officer responsible for taking action on my complaint. As above
3. The number of written complaints received by the above Requisite information sought by
officer during the period from 1.6.2010 to 30.11.2010 and the applicant through this point
the number of cases in which the action has been taken. is not available with this office
in compiled form. However
applicant can inspect relevant
available record in this office on
any working day at 11.00 am
with prior intimation with
regard to the complaint receipt
register and action taken
register, as per provisions of
RTI Act-2005
4. The procedure being followed by the MCD in taking action Action against illegal
against illegal construction. construction is taken as per
various provisions of DMC Act-
1957
Grounds of First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in an order dated 17.01.2011 observed that reply to the applicant's reply had been sent vide
their letter No. D/SE(C)-I/EE (B)-I/APIO-I/CNZ/2010/881/RTI. However, a copy of the same was
again enclosed for the applicant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
1) The Appellant has preferred the present appeal as he contends that the Appellate Authority has
disposed of the appeal without application of mind. In the appeal the appellant had clearly stated that
he has received reply dated 06.01.11 and the copy of the reply was also enclosed with the Appeal.
Therefore, it was clearly not a case of non-receipt of information. However, the Appellate authority
has observed that the appeal was preferred since no reply was received.
2) The grievance of the appellant is that repeated complaints regarding illegal construction and misuse
of premises and against the commercialization of the premises by a huge establishment like
Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health & Neuroscience 1, Institutional Area, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi-
110065 who was allotted land free of cost by the Government and the complaints have been ignored
by the MCD.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. A.K. Mittal, SE-I & PIO;
The Respondent states that a few hundred complaints are received every day and it appears that
there is no proper system of recording and dealing with these complaints as stated by the Respondent.
The Respondent states that there is no collated information available to identify how many complaints
are received by Junior Engineers and action taken by them on the complaints. This appears to be
indicating that there is no system of assessing the performance or non performance of the various
officers. The PIO has therefore offered an inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant which the
Appellant has not undertaken. The Commission recommends that if the department has any serious
intention of assessing the performances of its officials it should maintain its records to show how
various officers responsible for dealing with complaints are dealing with them.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
If the Appellant wants he can inspect the relevant records.
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 March2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ)