CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000589/3293
Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000589
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sham Lal
House No. 80/21, Gali No. 5,
Raj Nagar, Khandsa Road,
Gurgaon-122001.
Respondent : Mr. Vivek Raman
Public Information Officer
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016.
RTI application filed on : 25/12/2008 PIO replied : 19/12/2008 First appeal filed on : 23/01/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 16/02/2009 Second Appeal received on : 26/03/2009 Information sought: -
The appellant in his RTI in his application sought information regarding issuing of
certificate required to erect Mobile Tower on roof top on residential building after
01/01/2007. He wanted to know the names, address of building/building owners, date of
issuing of certificate with certificate no., date of inspection, number of person required to
inspect for testing the structural stability, TA paid for inspection and details of vehicle used
for the said purpose.
The PIO’s Reply:
S.No. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. Whether any structural stability Checking of design and drawings for
certificate of residential building in stability assessment for possible
District – Gurgaon, Haryana have been installation of roof top towers has been
issued for erecting Mobile Tower on undertaken for following parties. Site
roof top on residential building after inspection was not the scope of work.
01/01/2007. No certificate is issued No certificate is
issued in the names of owner of the
building.
a) M/s VAS Design and
infrastructure Consultant Pvt.
Ltd. E-126, FNB Road, Shahstri
Nagar, Delhi-52.
b) M/s Unique Designers, Flat No.
136, Pocket 16, Sector-3,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
c) M/s. Reliance Infratel Ltd., 5th
Floor, Vijaya Building, 15,
Barakhambha Road, New Delhi.
d) M/s. Shivam Constructions,
306, Jagdamba Tower,
Community Centre, Preet Vihar,
Delhi.
e) M/s. Jai Balaji, Infrastructure,
A-81/100, Sector 2, rohini, New
Delhi.
f) M/s. Paresh & Associates, 20,
Central Lane, Babar Road, New
Delhi &
g) M/s Sheltra Consultants, 74,
First Floor, South Patel Nagar
Market, New Delhi has been
undertaken and a certificate to
this effect is issued to the
respective clients/service
providers. Site inspection was
not in the scope of work carried
out. The certificates were not
issued in the name of owners of
the buildings.
2. If yes, please give the names, address of Not applicable in light of (i) above.
building/building owners to whom the
certificates were issued with the
certificate no. and date.
3. Please give the details on which date,
the inspection of building was done.
4. How many person/s are required to
inspect a residential building for testing
the structural stability (for each building
with respect to point (ii) above).
5. How many person/s have actually
inspected the residential buildings for
testing the structural stability (for each
building with respect to point (ii)
above)
6. How much TA was paid to inspect the
residential building for testing the
structural stability (for each building
with respect to point (ii) above).
7. Kindly provide the details of vehicle/s
used for transporting the equipment and
officials with vehicle number, distance
covered by the vehicle to and fro (for
inspecting each building with respect to
point (ii) above).
The First Appellant Authority’s Order:
The First Appellant Authority ordered, ” Having gone through the details, I would like to
comment as following:-
1) The reply given by PIO is exclusive and complete. The relief sought for is your
interpretation. In this regard, may please note that certificate is given to the client
only citing specific reference of building.
2) It may be noted that the assignment has been undertaken as consultancy. As per
agreed terms and conditions of consultancy assignment, consultancy report and
related documentation is confidential matter and cannot be disclosed to third party.
3) The drawings submitted by our client were returned to the client after the
assignment was completed. We do not maintain record of such documents, hence
unable to provide you a copy of the drawings.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sham Lal
Respondent: Mr. Vivek Raman
The appellant states that he wants the information for House no. 74/1/21 or 73/21, Gali no.
5, Raj Nagar, Gurgaon in the name Shri Vinod Kumar. The respondent had asked the third
Party under Section 11 of the RTI act and the third party had refused, hence the PIO did
not provide the information. Also the PIO stated that the copies of the plans of the building
and other documents supplied by the third party are not retained by them, hence they
cannot supply these since they do not have the records.
The PIO was asked on what grounds they were refusing the copies of the certificate. The
PIO stated that since the the third party objected and stated that the information was
confidential, he did not give it. The PIO is unable to give any of the exemption clauses of
Section 8 (1). The certificate is issued by the Public authority and none of the exemption
clauses apply to it.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the certified copy of the stability certificate to the appellant
before 30 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18th May 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)