Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.S.C. Yogi vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 July, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.S.C. Yogi vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 July, 2011
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001282/13288
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001282

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Mr. S.C. Yogi
                                            Senior Journalist
                                            8, Alipur Road
                                            Delhi-110040

Respondent                           :      Mr. N. K. Gupta
                                            Deemed PIO & AE(B),
                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                            Sadar Paharganj Zone, Idgah Road,
                                            Paharganj, New Delhi

RTI application filed on             :      07/01/2011
PIO replied on                       :      27/04/2011
First Appeal filed on                :      27/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order on   :      -------------
Second Appeal received on            :      11/05/2011

SL. Query                                                                     Reply of PIO
1.  Whether MCD has recognized any map for the assets no. 5354 at             MCD has not passed any map
    nayi basti for construction. Whether MCD has taken any kind of            for the asset no. 5354 at nayi
    approval for the construction.If yes please provide photocopy of          basti, Harful singh and no
    it.Whether this illegitimate construction is under the notice of Deputy   record is available.
    commissioner.
2.  Please give details about the amount of money given for the approval      As Above
    of the map.If it has been paid through cheque/DD, please provide the
    cheque/DD no. and also the name of the bank.Whether this map is
    residentially or commercially prepared.
3.  If this construction is not approved by the MCD, what are the             MCD has worked accordingly
    measures taken by the authorities?                                        and booked the construction.
4.  Whether MCD has booked for the break down of the illegitimate             As Above
    construction of the assets no.5354.If yes,why it has not been
    shattered yet?
5.  If there is any kind of difficulty in breaking down the assets no.5354    The work has been done as per
    then whether it has been sealed?If not,why?If yes ,How much               the procedure.
    estimated time is kept for breaking down of this illegitimate
    construction?
6.  If MCD has approved the map for construction in the asset no.5354         Same as reply to Query no.1
    then whether the construction is being done according to the map
    approved by MCD.If not,what are the action taken by the MCD.
7.  If there is an approval by the MCD then which engineer has been           Same as reply to Query no.1
    asked to submit the report of the working of the construction in the
                                                                                              Page 1 of 3
       asset no.5354.Please provide the details of engineer including his/her
      mobile number.
8.    Whether the Engineer has submitted his/her report to the Assistant        Same as reply to Query no.3
      Engineer,Executive Engineer or Supervising Engineer and what is
      the status mentioned by him/her?
9.    What is the area of asset no.5354.?What was the condition of asset        No record is available in this
      no. 5354 before the complaint or before the illegitimate construction?    matter.
10.   How much percentage of area of the Asset No.5354 has been                 As Above
      approved.Please provide the name,address and licence no. of the
      Architect.
11.   If there is an approval of the map for the construction in the asset      As Above
      no.5354,please provide the details that how much floor should be
      built along with the no. of room, no. of kitchen,no.of bathroom.
12.   Whether this construction is occurring under the part of property.        Same as reply to Query no.1
13.   Whether any earlier complaint has been received about the                 No complaint is available in
      illegitimate construction.If yes,please provide the details of the        this matter .
      complaint along with the name of the complainant.Also provide
      information regarding action taken by the MCD after the complaint.
14.   Please provide the details of all the officials who are directly linked
                                                                     The     Appellant   can    get
      to the asset no.5354 of the property and also provide a list ofcomplete details regarding the
      Engineers and their working area.                              property and other relevant
                                                                     information at L.D.C/SP2
                                                                     Building Department.
15.   How many complaint have been received by the MCD regarding the No record is available in this
      asset no. 5354 .                                               matter.
16.   Please response to all the queries in Hindi.                   Whole queries are responded
                                                                     in Hindi.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO, not satisfactory.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No hearing

Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant did not receive any information within 60 days.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, Deemed PIO & AE(B);

The respondent states that the information was sent on 27/04/2011 by the then EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet
Singh. The respondent states that assistance had been taken under Section 5(4) from Mr. Inderjeet Singh
on 11/01/2011 who provided the information only on 27/04/2011.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

Information available on the records appears to have been provided.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet Singh & deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.

Page 2 of 3

From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO 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. It appears that the 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.

The then EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet Singh & deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 05 August 2011 at 10.30am 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
06 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (MS))

Copy through Mr. N. K. Gupta, AE(B) to:

          1-         The then EE(B) Mr. Inderjeet Singh & deemed PIO




                                                                                                              Page 3 of 3