CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000924/3649
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000924
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Shri Late R. S. Sharma,
House no. 325/2,
Shah Pur Jat, New Delhi-110049
Respondent : Mr. Maneesh Rastogi,
Superintending Engineer-I/SZ
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
Office of the Superintending Engineer-I,
South Zone: Green Park,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 22.10.2008
PIO replied : 24.11.2008
First Appeal filed on : 23.12.2008
First Appellate Authority order : 02.02.2009
Second Appeal received on : 27.03.2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought for information regarding the action taken on the complaint of Rakesh
Kumar S/o Shri Late R. S. Sharma, House no. 325/2, Shah Pur Jat, New Delhi-110049.
1. That the applicant had addressed his complaint on the subject matter mentioned above.
2. That the applicant had not received any information of the action taken on the said
complaint.
The reply of PIO:
As PIO replied “Matter of illegal construction pertains to EE (B) South Zone, as far as
repairing/reconstruction repairing in building is allowed as per 6.4.1 of Delhi Building by
Laws-1983.
Grounds for First Appeal:
1. That the total Delhi police to MCD & the MCD itself documents, the
photographs, the reports, & the copy of booking number of the date of the
demolish ion of the encroachment, the details of the area proposed to be
demolished, the notice served by the MCD, be supplied to the Appellant to meet
justice.
2. The whether the information was the permission of construction the damaged
house of the Appellant to meet justice.
3. That MCD was demanded to give total information of the complaint not that
partly information be given to the Appellant.
4. That the department who had supplied the information has nothing to do with the
information why the complaint was sent to the wrong department?
5. That the copy of section quoted by the MCD be supplied to the Appellant.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The contents of the reply have been examined and it was found that reply given was not
suitable and incomplete in nature. As such the reply of the Building Department was required
to be given in appropriate manner while the reply of Maintenance Department requires
review. Directions had been given to Sptd. Engineer-I of the Zone to provide appropriate
reply to the appellant within 10 days of issue of order.
Grounds for second Appeal:
Till date no response or appropriate reply record, despite of direction/order by the FAA, has
not been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Respondent : Mr. B.S.Yadav on behalf of PIO Mr. Maneesh Rastogi,
Mr. Hisamuddin, AE(Building) and Mr. R.K.Verma (Works department)
Inspite of the clear order of the fist appellate authority given on 02/02/2009 to give the
information within 10 days the information was provided on 26/05/2009. The Superintending
Engineer on 09/02/2009 directed the following officers to provide the complete information
to the appellant:
1- EE(D)-I/SZ, Mr. M.R.Mittal upto 28/02/2009 and Mr. Maneesh Rastogi after 01/03/2009.
2- EE(MS)-II, Mr. M.K.Singla (Works department),
Mr. R.K.Verma states that no information has been provided from them and only the
building department had to provide the information. The appellant accepts that he was given
the information on 26/05/2009.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs Mr. Maneesh Rastogi and
Mr. M.R.Mittal (Building) are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified
under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not giving complete information within 30 days, as per
the requirement of the RTI Act. They have further refused to obey the orders of their superior
officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide.
The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given within 10 days.
It appears that the PIOs’ actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) . A showcause
notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give his reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
They will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 13 July 2009 at
4.30pm alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
10 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(Rnj)