CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002173/15298
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002173
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Madhu Manaktala
B-106, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
Respondent : Mr. Dilip Ramnanui
Public Information Officer & SE-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Suptdg. Engineer-I, South Zone,
Green Park, New Delhi-110016.
RTI application filed on : 06/01/2011
PIO replied on : 21/01/2011
First Appeal filed on : Not enclosed
First Appellate Authority order of : 04/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 22/07/2011
Sl. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Copy of approved building construction plan by MCD of Building plan was sanctioned in r/o B-
B-110 Malviya Nagar, New Delhi -110017. 110 Malviya Nagar vide
No.15/B/52/07 dt. 24/01/2007.
2. Copy of Completion certificate, if not there who allowed No such completion certificate was
them to enter in building and how they got electricity and issued in r/o above Property.
water connection without completion certificate and what
action taken by MCD?
3. Why no action taken by MCD Engg. Deptt. Against No such booking is available in r/o
construction of four rooms at parking area which supposed above property.
to be left completely vacant as per building by laws?
4. Copy of action taken report by MCD Engineers against -As above-
completely covering REAR SET BACK which can not be
compounded at any cost by MCD Engg. Deptt?
5. What stopped MCD Engg. Deptt. from taking demolition -As above-
and Sealing action against B-110 Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi-110017 in spite of complete violation of sanctioned
building plan and illegal construction? Was it money
factor as claimed by Mr. Sethi?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not enclosed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"Submissions of PIO and Appellant heard. Appellant's written queries have been examined. The reply
sent to the Appellant has been perused. The same is in order. No further reply / information is required to
be given to the Appellant. The grievance of the Appellant in respect of Property no.. B-110, Malviya
Nagar, is treated as a complaint and the PIO is directed to take necessary action in the matter, as per law."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mrs. Madhu Manaktala;
Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Tewatia, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Dilip Ramnanui, PIO & SE-I;
The PIO has not given copy of the approved plan sought by the Appellant without mentioning any
reasons. When the Commission asked the respondent the respondents stated that this is third party
information and hence cannot be provided. There is no provision in the RTI Act which states that third
parties are exempt from disclosure of information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide an attested copy of the building plan to the Appellant
before 10 November 2011. The PIO will also provide information on whether any action
has been taken against the building owner till date. If no action has been taken this should
be stated.
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
24 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
