CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000987/12678
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000987
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sushil Kumar
D- Wing, Shipping Corporation of India,
250, Sudam Kalu Ahire Marg,
Worli, Mumbai – 400030
Respondent (1) : Mr. Rajesh Khanna
Public Information Officer & SE
Office of Superintending Engineer,
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
3rd Floor, over Water head tank, Najafgarh,
New Delhi – 110043
(2) : Public Information Officer
Irrigation and Flood Control Department
GNCTD
4th Floor, ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi – 110006
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2009
PIO replied : Transferred on 22/09/2009 & 18/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 29/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 23/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/04/2010
Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding –
1) The heavy encroachments on both sides of the roads of Sagarpur main Nullah.
2) The details of the officers (including name, designation, contact information etc.) in the last five
years, who were responsible for reporting the building of such illegal encroachments, or when
there is any kind of encroachment on the above said roads, and have not informed your department
regarding the same.
3) Any record book or log book maintained for recording of any information of any illegal encroachment
it is it reported? If yes then a photocopy of the log book regarding the above mentioned road
encroachment should be given.
4) The reporting officers of the above mentioned officers, in the last five years?
5) A copy of the rules of your department, regarding the punishment of officers who do not report the
encroachment should be given. Date when actions against such officers will be intimated.
6) A copy of any action taken in the past against any of the officers for the above mentioned
encroachment. If no action can be taken against these officers, then the reason of such a decision should
be sent
Page 1 of 3
7) Steps that have been taken by the office to ascertain the position of the illegal encroachment of the
mentioned roads, after being alerted by the citizen.
8) A copy of all the communication exchanged between various departments regarding the same should
be sent
9) Time period after which action are taken, after being alerted about an illegal encroachment. Rules that
specify this. A copy is needed of that rule.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The file was transferred back and forth from the MCD and the Flood Control Deptt. of GNCTD.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The case at hand had already been decided (Appeal No. :108, dt : 30/07.dt: 22/09/2009)
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 24/06/2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sushil Kumar on video conference from NIC Studio Mumbai;
Respondent: Mr. Manoj Verma, EE(M-II) on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Khanna, PIO & SE;
The PIO did not have a copy of the RTI Application. Commission had given a copy of the appeal
to the PIO and had adjourned the matter to 23 July 2010 at 11.30AM. The PIO also stated that the matter
relating to the encroachment of the embankment of the nallah related to Irrigation and Flood Control
Department, GNCTD. PIO MCD stated that he had spoken to the Executive Engineer of Flood and
Irrigation Department who said that the demarcation details were available with the Revenue Department.
If that was the case PIO of Floor and Irrigation Department should bring the PIO of Revenue Department
for the Hearing.
In view of this the PIO of MCD and PIO of Irrigation and Flood Control Department were directed
to appear before the Commission on 23 July 2010 at 11.30AM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 23 July 2010:
“The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sushil Kumar
Respondent: i) Mr. Manoj Kumar Verma [EE (M-II), Najafgarh]
ii) Mr. Anil Kumar Chopra (PIO & SE, Najafgarh)
Mr. AK Chopra states that there is confusion as to who owns the land regarding which the information is
being sought. He states that he has talked to SDM Najafgarh who is the PIO concerned of this area. Mr.
Rajeev Shukla (SDM, Najafgarh) has assured him that they will do a physical verification and reconcile
them with their records and give a report about who owns the land at the place where information is being
sought. In view of this the Commission adjourns this hearing to 18 August 2010 at 5.00 pm. All the PIOs
present and the Appellant are directed to be present at the hearing on 18 August at 5.00 pm.
The matter is adjourned to 18 August 2010 at 5.00 pm.”
Page 2 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 August 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sushil Kumar on video conference from NIC Mumbai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Verma, EE (M-II), Najafgarh on behalf of PIO Mr. Rajesh Kumar;
Mr. A. K. Bhatia, Surveyor or works to SEFC-VI, Basaidara Pur Office Complex, Opposite ESI Hospital,
New Delhi; Mr. S. K. Achaantani, Executive Engineer Civil Division-I (INFC Department), Basaidara Pur
Office Complex, Opposite ESI Hospital, New Delhi;
“Mr. A. K. Bhatia states that efforts were made to get the demarcation from the Area SDM Mr.
Rajeev Shukla, SDM(Nazafgarh). Mr. Shukla has stated that in the absence of Kila reference points as per
Sizra of the Village the demarcation could not be accomplished for the reason that the area around the
Nallah is heavily built-up. In view of this Dy. Commission (south west) would be able to get this
demarcation done. In the absence of this demarcation it would not be possible to identify the responsible
agency.
The matter is adjourned.”
Decision announced on 3 June, 2011:
The Commission contacted the Revenue department to see if information could be obtained for the
appellant. However from the letters (enclosed six pages with this order) sent by the officers, it appears
that presently there is no information available since the demarcation has not been done so far. The
Commission is enclosing the communications received with this decision. This Commission can only
adjudicate on a matter where the information exists. In the instant matter no information exists and the
Commission does not have powers to ensure that the demarcation would be done.
The appeal is disposed.
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
03 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 3 of 3