CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001066/12997Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001066
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Suresh Chandra Agarwal
Pocket 1-8/3, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. M. P. Gupta
PIO & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Rohini Zone, Sector-(V),
Rohini, Delhi - 110085
RTI application filed on : 18/12/2010
PIO replied on : 10/01/2011
First Appeal filed on : 22/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 11/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 19/04/2011
Q. Information Sought PIO`s Reply
1. There is unauthorized construction in sector 16, Relevant action is taken under the DMC Act.
Rohini. If the MCD is aware of the same, why has no
action been taken?
2. Under the MCD rules, is any construction which Action is taken when the complaint is filed.
demolishes the boundary between two houses legal?
3. Against how many illegal construction in the area , has The appellant can come and inspect the
the MCD taken any action? records.
4. Has any FIR been lodged against the individual who No such information is available on record.
have carried on any illegal construction?
5. Some houses, with permissible limits of just one or If any such illegal construction is found at
two floors have been extended to three and four floors, the time of survey, relevant action under the
has any action been taken against them? DMC Act is taken.
6. Will there be any action against officials who have not Necessary action will be taken.
registered a complaint against these illegal activities?
7. How many of these are shops and vendors? When the information will be available on
record, it shall be provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The information provided in incomplete and ambiguous.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO is directed to furnish correct and complete information to the appellant two weeks from the date
of issue of this order. Mr. S. R. Meena, EE(B-II) and Mr. P. R. Meena, AE(B-II) were present at the
hearing.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been provided as yet.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 21 June 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. R. Meena, Deemed PIO & Executive Engineer (Building) – II on behalf of PIO&
SE-II Mr. M. P. Gupta;
The respondent states that the order of the FAA was not received by him. This is a very serious
matter since if FAA’s orders do not reach the PIO there would be unnecessary appeals coming to the
Commission.
The Commission directs the First Appellate Authority Mr. D. N. Singh, Dy. Commissioner (Rohini
Zone), PIO Mr. M. P. Gupta SE-II and Mr. S. R. Meena EE(B-II) to present themselves before the
Commission on 20 July 2011 at 04.30PM to identify the person responsible for this complete lack of
communication between the FAA and the PIO.
Commission’s Decision dated 21 June 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs PIO Mr. M. P. Gupta to furnish the complete information to the
Appellant as per the order of the FAA before 05 July 2011.
The Commission also directs Mr. D. N. Singh Dy. Commissioner (Rohini Zone), Mr. M.P. Gupta
PIO/SE and Mr. S. R. Meena EE(B-II) to appear before the Commission on 20 July 2011 at 04.30PM
to identify the person responsible for the FAA’s order not being implemented.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 July 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. D. N. Singh, Dy. Commissioner (Rohini Zone); Mr. M. P. Gupta, PIO & SE-II;
and Mr. S. R. Meena, EE(B-II) and Deemed PIO;
The respondents state that the information as per the order of the FAA had been provided to the
Appellant on 14/03/2011. The respondents claim that Mr. S. R. Meena suffered from the loss of
memory and had not prepared himself for the hearing. He therefore stated that the information was not
provided and that FAA’s order was not received. They have produced before the Commission an
acknowledgement by the appellant of 14/03/2011 acknowledging the receipt of information. The PIO
states that he has again provided the information on 27/06/2011.
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the explanations the Commission drops the penalty proceedings.
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
20 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)