CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 2616179
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00097/1876
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00097
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Vinod Kumar,
Section Officer, Directorate of Egg. B (T),
Air Headquarter, Ministry of Defence,
West Block – IV, RK Puram,
New Delhi – 110008.
Respondent : The Executive Engineer (Bldg.) NGZ
& APIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Office of the Dy. Commissioner,
2nd Floor, Over Head Water Tank,
Nagafgarh, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2008 PIO replied : 29/07/2008 First appeal filed on : 26/08/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 17/10/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 07/11/2008 Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an appeal an application seeking information regarding Construction of
house.
There are total 6 queries asked by the Appellant as under:
1. In hearing of “Note” on page no 6 of notification dated 23-07-1998 (copy enclosed for ready
reference) the following has been mentioned “Levy on the additional FAR to be allowed vide
Notification dated 15-05-1995 including the basement and/or development charges shall be
charged at the @ 450/- per sq mtrs. Or rates as laid down in the Building Bye-laws or through
Govt. orders and as revised from time to time.
As such, it may kindly be intimated that as on date how much FAR can be
covered/constructed without depositing any betterment/construction/development
charges/levy.
2. Whether the betterment levy is chargeable according to FAR to be covered or the same is
chargeable according to the total area of plot on which the house will be constructed.
3. A copy of notification dated 15-05-1995 may kindly be provided.
4. Is there any exemption/concession regarding depositing charge/levy to the people belong to
weaker section or society i.e. SC/ST while constructing house.
5. On page 21 of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part-II, Section 3 Sub-Section (ii) No. 125
dated 07-02-07 (Briefly Known as Master Plan of Delhi – 2021) it has been mentioned that
567 unauthorized colonies were regularised till October 1993.
A copy of list containing name of these 567 unauthorized regularised colonies may kindly be
provided.
6. It may be intimated as to who can be considered as “Licensed Supervisor” for the purpose of
construction of a house.
The PIO’s Reply:
The PIO had transferred the application to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as the information
sought is more closely connected with the MCD.
But the Appellant has not yet got any reply from the MCD Dept.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The First appellate authority ordered that the information must be given in 7 days.
Relevant Facts emerging during hearing:
Following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vinod Kumar
Respondent: Mr. Kamal Meena on behalf of Mr.B.K.Gupta PIO
The PIO has got some information which he has given to the appellant.
He will also give a list of unauthorized regularised colonies to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will send the list of unauthorized regularised colonies to the appellant before 5
March 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. The PIO has sent a note stating that the
responsibility for this is of Mr. Arun Singh Lal JE, Mr. Kamal Meena AE, Mr. C.B. Singh
AE and Mr. K.K. Meena AE who delayed the information. These are being treated as deemed
PIOs.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs are 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. They further refused to obey
the orders of their superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of
information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the
information to be given. .
It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed to give their reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
They will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
them as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 March, 2009. They will also submit proof
of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20th February, 2009.
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)