CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00607 dated 27.2.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Hari Ram Gupta
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi.
Facts
:
By an application of 16.7.07 Shri Hari Ram Gupta of Bhogal, New Delhi
applied to Shri R. K. Nagpal, MOUD on behalf of Food Grain and Kirana
Merchants Association, Samman Bazar, Bhogal, seeking the following
information:
“Please provide us the following detailed information as being
sought on the basis of a letter received by this Association from its
member dealers and other traders who are doing business since
much before 1962 i.e. before the first Master Plan of 1962 came
into existence.
(i) What type of proof of documents is required to be
produced about the business before 1962? If no document
is available with any trader whether or not Affidavit to this
effect would suffice the purpose?
(ii) As advertised in a number of newspapers that the
commercial use should be continuous; what proof is required
in this connection?
(iii) Whether there is no objection in the change of the
business i.e. from Kirana Store to cloth shop or sanitary
shop & vice versa during this long period over 45 or 50 years
or so.
(iv) Whether the change of constitution of ownership of the
business is allowed?
(v) Whether or not such person engaged in business
activities before 1962 are exempt from the Payment of
annual conversion charges/ mixed use charges and/ or
Parking charging recently announced by the MCD.
(vi) Kindly give information to whom the supportive
information being in existence regarding commercial
activities before 1962 is to be submitted?
(vii) Please provide the Association the detailed guidelines for
persons engaged in commercial activities before 1962 for
compliance by our traders.”
1
This application was transferred by Shri P. K. Santra, Under Secretary &
CPIO, MoUD on 17.7.07 to the Vice Chairman, DDA & Commissioner, MCD.
The Vice Chairman, DDA in his turn transferred the application to Shri Yash Pal
Garg Director CL on 25.7.07, to Shri Prahalad Singh, Director LD on 30.7.07 and
to the Commissioner, MCD on 7.8.07. This application, therefore, seems to have
done the round till appellant Shri Hari Ram Gupta got a response on 22.8.07
from PIO and Director Horticulture, MCD stating that “the said RTI does not
pertain to Horticulture Department, MCD.”
Shri H.R. Gupta, therefore, moved his first appeal before Ms. Sujata
Chaturvedi, Director, MOUD pleading that “The information asked for is related/
connected to the Ministry of Urban Development as per Master Plan 2021.”
In this appeal he also traced the routing of his application as follows:
“That Shri P. K. Santra forwarded the said application:-
1. The Vice Chairman
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Delhi- 110 006On 17.7.07 (Annexure ‘C’ Page 5) itself u/s 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005
as the information sought are more closely related to these two
public authorities.
That Senior RO (RTI) at DDA Vikas Sadan first sent it to the
Director Shri Yash Pal Garg and then to another Director Shri
Prahlad Singh vide letters dated 25.7.07 and 30.7.07, endorsing
copies to the applicant and Shri P. K. Santra of your Ministry
(Copies enclosed as Annexure D page 6 and E page 7). That the
said RO (RTI) again transferred this application to the
Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi stating the requested
information does not fall within the jurisdiction of their Dep’t.
That the Commissioner MCD might have sent this application dated
16.7.07 of the applicant to this Deputy Commissioner Central Zone,
Lajpat Nagar of which there is no intimation or endorsement to the2
applicant. That the Deputy Commissioner Central Zone transferred
it to CTP, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in the printed form
Annexure-VIII dated 16.8.07 (Annexure ‘G’ page 9) without
endorsing any copy to Shri P. K. Santra and also without filling any
column of the proforma whether the information does not fall in his
jurisdiction etc.That the applicant received letter dated 22.8.07 (Annexure H page
10) from the Director Horticulture PIO, MCD stating that the
information sought does not pertain to Horticulture Department
MCD. The said PIO neither informed that he is sending the said
application dated 16.7.07 to any other public authority nor endorsed
a copy to Shri A. K. Santra of UD Ministry for his information.”
This appeal was heard by Ms. Sujata Chaturvedi who in her order of
28.9.07 has advised as follows:
“The appellant informed the undersigned that he has received
details regarding the information sought by him from Chief Town
Planner, MCD on 14th September, 2007.
The appellant was informed that the decision of the CPIO to
transfer the application dated 16.7.2007 under section 6 (3) (ii) to
DDA and MCD was correct and that in case the appellant is not
satisfied with the action taken by the concerned public authorities,
i.e. DDA and MCD on his application, then he is required to
approach the concerned appellate authorizes in these
organizations. It was also explained to the appellant that sine he
has now received the information, no action as requested by him in
Para 11 of his appeal dated 3.9.2007 is called for. In view of this,
the appeal stands disposed of.”
In the meantime, appellant appears to have received information from the
Chief Town Planner dated 14.9.07 and moved a first appeal before Addl.
Commissioner (Engg.) on 12.10.07. In information received from Shri V. K.
Bugga, Chief Town Planner dated 14.9.07; the following were the answers to
each of his questions:
1. “Trade License required. Affidavit will not serve the purpose.
2. Proof should be in the form of documentary evidence.
3. There is no objection in the change of the business.
3
4. There is no objection in the change of the Ownership.
5. Mixed use charge and parking charge are levied.
6. You may contact concerned zonal office of MCD in this
regard.
7. There is no such list in the record available with this
Department.”
In this context appellant’s grounds of appeal with regard to each of the
question answers were as follows:
Information asked for Information/ reply Comments/ Grounds of
(Page (7) (1) received (Page 21) appeal (3)
(2)
Para (1) What type of Trade licence Trade license would be
Proof is required about required. Affidavit rarely available with the
the business activities would not serve the traders for the said period.
before 1962. If no purpose. As per Para 5.1 Pre 1962/
document is available MPD-1962: Commercial
with any trader, whether activities existing from prior
or not affidavit would to 1962 in Residential areas
suffice. are also permitted subject to
documentary proof thereof.
If the dealer has any
document of Sales Tax
Dep't., Income Tax Dep't.,
or of any other Govt. Dep't.,
of that period that may also
serve the purpose. Even
appellant authority's own
statement as appearing in
Hindi Navbharat Times
dated 28.6.07.
Para (2) as advertised in Proof should be in the What is meant by
a number of newspapers form of documentary documentary evidence of
that the Commercial use evidence. continuity for a trader is
should be continuous. ambiguous.
What proof is required in
this connection
Para (3) whether there is There is no objection Perfectly clear.
any objection to change for change of
of business i.e. from a business.
4
Kirana Shop to Cloth
business etc.
Para (4) Whether change There is no objection Perfectly clear.
of constitution of for Change of
ownership of the ownership.
business is allowed.
Para (5) Whether or not Mix use charge and This appeal to be incorrect,
such person engaged in parking charge are incomplete & misleading
business activities before levied. information/ reply as per
1962 are exempt from Para 5.1 of MPD 2021 says:
payment of annual Pre 1962/ MPD-1962:
conversion charges/ mix Commercial activity existing
use charges and or from prior to 1962 in
parking charges as Residential areas are also
announced by MCD. permitted. Also as per Para
5.3.1 (iii) Commercial
activities prior to 1962 in
residential areas subject to
documentary proof shall be
permitted. What is
permitted prior to 1962
commercial activities, if he
has to pay both the annual
conversion/ misuse charges
and parking charges? Even
appellant authority's own
statement as appearing in
Hindi Nav Bharat Times
dated 28.6.2007. Meaning
hereby that they have not to
pay the conversion/ mix use
charges.
Para (6) Kindly give You may contact Yes the Zonal Offices of
information to whom the concerned Zonal MCD are accepting the said
supportive information in Office of MCD in this one time Parking Charges
existence regarding regard. and or the annual Mix use/
Commercial activities Conversion charges and the
before 1962 is to be supportive information of in
submitted. existence before 1962 is
being submitted.
Para (7) please provide There is no such list But there were some news
the association the in the record in some papers about some
detailed guidelines for available with the guidelines to MCD to
persons engaged in dep't. process such cases of in
Commercial activities existence prior to 1962. If
before 1962. there is no such guideline
5
with the Commission MCD
then it is alright.
The orders of Addl. Commissioner (Engg.) of 20.11.07 were as follows:
“Information to the points raised by the appellant in his application
has been provided to him. However, if the appellant needs any
further clarification he may contact Chief Town Planner. CTP may
also ensure that grievance of the appellant, if any may be settled as
per rules in force without delay.”
Appellant’s prayer before us is basically as follows:
“That the appellant wrote letter dated 28.11.07 (Annexure page
35) to the Chief Town Planner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Delhi as advised by the appellant authority, MCD in its order
(Page 2) requesting him to give the undersigned, personal
haring on some convenient date, but there is no response
from the said Chief Town Planner in spite of appellant’s
personal efforts to meet him for desired clarification.”
The points which he has raised in his appeal before us are, in his words,
“Just similar to what has been taken in the first appeal before the AA MCD”. He
concludes his prayer with the following:
“That the appellant submitted application for information dated
16.7.2007 to the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India,
New Delhi which was duly forwarded to the Commissioner, MCD
vide letter dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure page 7) within the time
allowed as per proviso to selection 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 but the
reply of the Chief Town Planner MCD is dated 14.9.2007/8 (i.e.
after say 56 or 57 days in contravention of the requirements of
Section 7 of the RTI Act 2005 of which CIC may take due notice
and take action as per the requirement of the RTI Act 2005 besides
directing the concerned authority to provide the necessary
information asked for free of cost as per the requirement of
selection 7 (6) of the said RTI Act.
Your good self is requested to hear any appeal on the facts stated
above. The appellant may kindly be heard in person.”
In response to the appeal notice Shri Bugga Chief Town Planner has
submitted the following questions and answers:
6
S. No. Question Answer
1. What type of proof or As already stated to establish a trade
documents is required to be before 1962, a trade license of pre-62
produced about the will be acceptable as proof of
business before 1962? If business. An affidavit is not any
no document is available proof.
with any trader whether or
not Affidavit to this effect
would suffice the purpose?
2. As advertised in a number Any document/ documents conveying
of newspapers that the the use of the property as commercial
commercial use should be (license/ lease deed etc) continuously
continuous; what proof is till date is required.
required in this connection?
3. Whether there is no There is no objection to change of
objection in the change of business.
the business i.e. from
Kirana Store to cloth shop
or sanitary shop & vice
versa during this long period
over 45 or 50 years or so.
4. Whether the change of There is no objection to change in the
constitution of ownership of constitution of ownership/
the business is allowed?
5. Whether or not such person Mix use charges to the extent of the
engaged in business property was commercial prior to 1962
activities before 1962 are are exempted. Area under use of
exempt from the payment of commercial activity in the property
annual charges/ mixed use after 1962 is subject to payment of
charges and/ or parking conversion as well as parking
charging recently charges.
announced by the MCD.
6. Kindly give information to The entire information/ documentary
whom the supportive evidence is to be submitted to the
information being is concerned Municipal Zonal
existence regarding Authorities.
commercial activities before
1962 is to be submitted?
7. Please provide the No such information is available on
association the detailed record in the Dep't.
guidelines for persons
engaged in commercial
activities before 1962 for
compliance by our such
traders.
7
The appeal was heard on 1.9.09. Respondent Shri V. K. Bugga, Chief
Town Planner, MCD is present. We have received a fax message from Shri Hari
Ram Gupta dated 29.8.07 submitting as follows:
“I am opting not to be present and request your good self to
dispose/ decided of the appeal taking into consideration the
grounds taken in the appeal.”
DECISION NOTICE
We find that all the questions raised by appellant Shri Hari Ram Gupta in
his original application have been answered. However, the appeal of appellant
clearly states that he seeks further clarifications but that he has been unable to
meet Chief Town Planner, MCD. Therefore, he will now meet Chief Town
Planner at 12.00 Noon on 8.9.08 upon which the Chief Town Planner will provide
to him any further clarifications sought, free of cost.
On the question of the application having traversed considerable ground
before it finally reached the appropriate official who could provide a reply i.e.
Chief Town Planner, we note that this is certainly a pathetic commentary on the
processing of RTI applications in the MoUD and organizations related to it.
Admittedly the reference needed to be made to the CPIO who could provide the
information sought u/s 6(3) of the Act. However, it will appear that neither the
MoUD nor indeed the DDA and MCD themselves were able to identify the
concerned wing from which the information was to be obtained. Under the
circumstances, appellant Shri Hari Ram Gupta is indeed entitled to receiving
information free of cost u/s 7(6). Any fee paid by him will, therefore, be refunded
to him within 10 working days from the date of issue of this notice by the CPIO,
MoUD. Besides, CPIO, MOUD will also enquire from both DDA and MCD, the
reasons for the lengthy trajectory adopted for reference of this RTI application to
the appropriate official and advise both organizations on the steps necessary to
streamline their functioning. This exercise may be completed within 20 working
days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
8
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties. A copy may also be sent to Shri S Jaipal Reddy, Minister Urban
Development for his information regarding the manner of disposal of the
application of Shri Gupta
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
1.9.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
1.9.2008
9