CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001133/8088
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001133
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shahnawaz Khan
D-61, Gali No.1,
Sachdeva Marriage Home,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.
Respondent : Mr. C. B. Singh
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Superintendent Engineer-I
Keshav Chowk, G. T. Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
RTI application filed on : 05/08/2009
PIO replied : 14/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 03/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 02/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/04/2010
Information Sought:
i) Details regarding illegal constructions in Shahdara East Zone and Shahdara West
Zone booked in Missal Band Register from 01/01/2006 onwards. Copies of the same.
ii) Action taken on the said illegal constructions.
iii) Details regarding legal/illegal constructions done after booking in the Missal Band
Register.
iv) Action taken against residential constructions done without approval of their building
plans. Addresses of the said constructions.
v) No. of Junior Engineers appointed in Shahdara East Zone and Shahdara West Zone.
Area and the time period for which each Junior Engineer has been in service in the
said zones.
vi) Whether Property No. D-22/7 E, Madhuban, Gali No.3 in East Shahdara is registered
in the Missal Band Register. Whether the building plan of the said Property was
approved when it was reconstructed in 2006. Copy of the documents of the said
property.
Public Information Officer’s (PIO) reply:
i) 28 illegal constructions have been booked in Shahdara East Zone from 01/01/2006 to
30/08/2009.Details regarding the said constructions are available with the department,
copy of which can be obtained form the department on any working day.
ii) Action against illegal constructions is taken in accordance with the provisions of the
MCD.
Page 1 of 3
iii) 554 building plans have been approved by the department from01/01/2006 to
30/08/2009.
iv) Action against residential constructions done without approval of their building plans
is taken in accordance with the provisions of the MCD.
v) The details of the 6 Junior Engineers appointed in the said Zones were provided.
vi) The said property is not registered with the department. The property was constructed
without the approval of its building plan.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed the PIO to provide the required information within 7 days from the date of its
order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non- compliance of the FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shahnawaz Khan;
Respondent: Mr. Umed Singh, AE on behalf of Mr. C. B. Singh, PIO & SE;
The appellant states that the copies of the records had not been sent initially and had been
sent to him only on 25/05/2010 vide letter no. EE(B)-2/SH-N/10/D-273. The appellant states that
in reply to query-1 the PIO had said that he should visit the office of the PIO. He shows that he
has gone to the office of the PIO on 04/01/2010 and OI(D) Mr. Satyapal Singh has written that
the attested copies would be provided to him within 15 days, but no information was sent to him.
The PIO should have indicated the number of pages for which photocopies to be provided and
asked for the additional fee if it was within 30 days. In the instant case since the reply was being
sent after 30 days the attested copies should have been sent free of cost immediately. The
Appellant admits that he has received the complete information on 25/05/2010.
The Respondent states that the person responsible for sending the information late was Mr. Satya
Pal Singh, OI(B) who has not retired.
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 deemed PIO Mr. Satya Pal Singh, OI(B) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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 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.
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Satya Pal Singh, OI(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
07 July 2010 at 3.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). 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 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
10 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AG)
CC:
To,
Mr. Satya Pal Singh, OI(B) through Mr. Umed Singh, AE
Page 3 of 3