CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002244/9132
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/ 002244
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Anand,
D-138, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi- 110060
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Superintending Engineer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
(Karol Bagh Zone),
Nigam Bhavan, DB Gupta Road,
Anand Parbat,
New Delhi- 110005
RTI application filed on : 11/05/2010
PIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 01/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 17/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 09/08/2010
Information Sought:
1. Whether construction can be raised up to 5th and 6th floor on a plot area measuring
88 square yard in Old Rajinder Nagar.
2. On plot number 4/62, 5th and 6th floor have been constructed. Has the said
construction been sanctioned/ approved by MCD?
3. If answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, under what bye-law construction can
be raised up to 5th and 6th floor on a plot area measuring 88 square yard in Old
Rajinder nagar? Provide a copy of the said bye law, allowing the construction on 5 th
and 6th floor.
4. If answer to question 2 is in the negative, what action has been taken by MCD in
this regard?
5. What is the action plan of MCD to demolish a building if it is not constructed as
per sanctioned building plan?
6. Is the FAR of plot number 4/62, Old Rajinder Nagar 350 or more than that?
7. Property numbers 4/62 and 4/63, Old Rajinder Nagar, were sealed somewhere in
the years 2004/ 2005. Which portion of the said properties was sealed? What is the
present status of the said properties in MCD records? Are these properties lying
sealed or have been desealed? If desealed, when?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No information was provided by the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was furnished by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the Appellant had not received any reply till date. The PIO/
SE confirmed that reply was not sent. The PIO/ SE was directed to provide a reply to
the RTI application within 2 weeks from the issue of the order of the FAA. The PIO/
SE was further directed to pinpoint the officer responsible for not providing the
information sought within the mandated time.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information was given by the PIO and non- compliance of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA
has given a clear order dated 17/07/2010 directing the PIO/ SE to provide the
information to the Appellant within 2 weeks of the order of the FAA. The PIO/ SE
was further directed to pinpoint the officer responsible for not providing the
information sought within the mandated time. The Appellant has not been provided
with the information requested for despite the order of the FAA. Further, it appears
that the PIO/ SE has not communicated to the FAA the name of the officer(s)
responsible for the delay in providing the information.
The Commission therefore directs the PIO/ SE to provide the information requested
for by the Appellant. Denial of information to an Appellant under the RTI Act can
only be done if what is sought is not “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of
the RTI Act or is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO/ SE has neither
claimed that it is not “information” nor has he claimed that it is exempt under Section
8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO/ SE is directed to comply with the order of the
FAA and provide the complete information requested by the Appellant before
September 20, 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/ SE is guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under Section 7(1) by not replying
within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey
the orders of the FAA, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information
may also be mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be given. It
appears that the actions of the PIO/ SE attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of
the RTI Act. A show cause notice is being issued to him and he is directed to give his
reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on October 11,
2010 at 11:00 am along with his written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. He
will also submit proof of having given the information to the Appellant. If there are
other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant
and for not complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO/ SE is directed to inform
such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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 the
RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
August 31, 2010
(For any further correspondence on this matter, please mention the file number quoted above.) (VK)