Shri Ram Prakash vs Municipal Corp. Of Delhi (Mcd) … on 25 August, 2008

                                                                      To issue in Hindi
             CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                       Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00216 dated 4.1.2008
                         Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant      -       Shri Ram Prakash
Respondent         -   Municipal Corp. of Delhi (MCD) Slum & JJ


Facts

:

By an application of 15.2.07, assigned ID No. 690, Shri Ram Prakash of
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi applied to Slum & JJ Dep’t. M.C.D. seeking the
following information:

1. “What was the area of Shop No. D-2, when allotted. In lieu of which
place it was allotted. Against which shop No. it was allotted and in
whose name it was allotted.

2. We gave an application regarding Shop No. 2D on 12.1.05. Again
gave an application on 14.6.05. In these applications, we made a
complaint about unauthorized construction up to road on roadside
of this shop by my younger brother Shri Kishan Lal, which consists
of first and second floor. By this unauthorized construction, he is
earning Rs. 9000 to 10000/- per month. This unauthorized
construction be demolished, which action has not been taken till
date. What action has been taken and with whom these
applications are lying. Was MCD informed of this Shop No. 2.
Please provide full detail and take immediate action to demolish
this unauthorized construction, even if so desired in collaboration
with M.C.D.

3. Copies of application dated 12.1.06 submitted by us along with
documents for proof and map etc. be provided and copies of
documents furnished on 14.6.05 along with application by my
brothers including wrong wills in favour of their wives be provided.
These documents should be attested one and should contain all
stamps along with allotment letter for Shop No. 2 and other relevant
papers in the file.

4. Copies of photos taken by employees of Zone on 16.6.05 in
connection with unauthorized construction over shop No. D-2 along
with measurements recorded by them on 15.2.06 for Shop No. D-2.
What measurements were recorded by them for House No. 21-A

1
including constructed area on it may please be provided. Zone
employees included one Shri Malik and the other we recognize by
face and do not know his name.

To this he received a reply from PIO Slum & JJ Dep’t, MCD. on 7.3.07
attaching a report received from the Director (JJR) as follows:

1. “We are unable to provide information because the file relating to
this shop is untraceable. In this connection, applicant has already
been informed vide DRIA No. 24/06 regarding information sought
by him earlier.

2. This action is under consideration in JJ Survey Dep’t.

3. Information asked vide Para No. 3 does not relate to this
Department. Therefore, photo copies of information vide
applications dated 12.1.05 and 14.6.05 from Zonal Office are not
being provided. We are also unable to certify it as it is not in record
of our office.

4. Zonal Office (West) has not issued any orders regarding taking of
photographs or taking measurement of this unauthorized
construction. Therefore, we are unable to provide any information.”

This response also invited the applicant to inspect the files in the Office of
Director (JJR), a curious invitation since the Director JJR’s report stated that
there was no file to inspect. Not satisfied with this response, Shri Ram Prakash
moved his first appeal on 9.4.07 contesting the response received. Upon this an
order was issued on 1.8.07, a copy of which was not received by appellant Shri
Ram Prakash, even though a hearing had been held by Shri A. B. Shukla, First
Appellate Authority and Addl. Commissioner, Slum & JJ on 30.7.’07. However, a
report stated to be in compliance with these orders dated 22.8.07 was received
by Shri Ram Prakash, which stated as follows:

“With reference to your application in DRIA, it is inform you that the
competent authority has approved the sealing of plots No. D-1 to D-
VII Subhash Market, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi and the sealing
action is in process.”

Subsequently on 1.1.08 Shri Ram Prakash moved a further complaint
before First Appellate Authority for non-compliance as below:

2

“Officers against whom complaint has been made:
Director of Estate Shri D.P.Ture
Asstt. Director Shri Kundan Lal
Dy. Director Shri M. R. Sharma

Two Officers of Zonal Office: 1. Shri Kamal Singh and other’s name
we do not know.

We had also made written complaints on 8.10.07 and 15.11.07.
Those complaints be read with this complaint carefully. – Ram
Prakash

This complaint is against these officers as well as against Shop No.
D-1 o D-7, Subhash Market, JJ Colony, Raghubir Nagar.”

Almost at the same time he also moved his second appeal before us
submitting that he had not received the information sought, as below:

“We request you to read details of dates of hearing carefully and
then fine them Rs. 25000/- and provide us little justice. For
balance justice and compensation, we will move Hon’ble High
Court and Consumer Forum, because we have been harassed
intentionally. We have paid fees as also charge of Rs. 2/- per page.
Later on we came to know that those having BPL Ration Card are
not charged for this amount. They have taken advantage of our
ignorance about it and also our inability to understand English.”

The ground on which he has based this appeal is as below:

“We had given written complaints to Appellate Authority on every
date of hearing i.e. 26.9.07, 8.10.07 and again on 15.11.07 and
1.1.08 along with proof that these officers are telling lies and
furnishing misleading information but the Appellate Authority has
not taken any action and continued giving dates again and again
whereas it is mandated to furnish information within 30 days.
Therefore, they may be fined Rs. 25,000/- so that we get little
peace of mind. All these five officers and Appellate Authority are
aware that I am suffering from four big disease including Asthma. “

This was followed by a prayer of 30.5.08 requesting an out of turn hearing
on grounds of appellant’s age. The appeal was heard on 25.8.08. The following
are present:

Appellant
Shri Ram Prakash

3
Respondents
Shri M. R. Sharma, Dy. Director
Shri D.P.Ture, PIO

Because there was no copy of the orders of the First Appellate Authority on
file, even though a copy of the compliance report was included, we sought and
obtained in the hearing the order of Shri A. B. Shukla, First Appellate Authority of
1.8.07. This reads as follows:

“Jt. Director (DRIA) is directed to give complete reply before the
next date of hearing.

The case is adjourned to 22.8.07 at 11.00 a.m.”

A copy was also handed over to appellant Shri Ram Prakash in the
hearing. Shri Ram Prakash made a written submission with the following prayer :

a) You are requested to call First Appellate Authority Shri A.B.

Shukla in the hearing.

b) All those officers, who have given first information may be
asked to appear in the hearing.

c) Shri M.R.Sharma, who had heard an appeal on 22.8.07 and
provided a small portion of information may be called to
appear in the hearing.

d) The Survey Department of this Zone may be asked to bring
details of first survey done on 15.2.06 and second survey
done on 8.3.07 including maps for Shop Nos. 1 to 7, defining
area on which construction has been done, so that it could
be established that misleading information has been
furnished that file is in Court and CBI . Only then it can be
established that information provided on 3.3.06 is also
wrong. Survey Diary No.:

First Survey 15.2.06 or 16.2.06 Sh. G.S.Mehra 3/50/JJR/06
Second survey : 8.3.07 R-93 Survey Officer Sh. D.P.Ture”

From the above, it is clear that all what Appellant Shri Ram Prakash is
seeking is compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority. On the
other hand Shri M. R. Sharma, Dy. Director MCD submitted that the original file

4
on this subject is untraced and has remained untraced despite efforts to recover
it since last year.

DECISION NOTICE

The applicant Shri Ram Prakash has approached this Commission
submitting, inter-alia, that in spite of the orders passed by the First Appellate
Authority, which he had not received but was aware of from the hearing before 1st
appellate authority, the PIO has not complied with the orders and the information
requested has not been furnished till date.

From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of
information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First
Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by him are duly complied
with by the PIO, and some inadequacies in exchanging documents now stand
addressed, the Commission has decided to remand the case back to the First
Appellate Authority Shri A. B. Shukla, Addl. Commissioner (Slum & JJ) to ensure
that his orders under section 19 (1) are duly complied with and the requested
information furnished in terms of the order so passed. In doing so, he will ensure
the supply of specific information sought to appellant Shri Ram Prakash.

If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings
under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and / or recommending
appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to the right of the
first Appellate Authority to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal Code
against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public
servant while exercising statutory powers.

If however, it is found that information cannot be provided because the file
remains untraced, we hold that it is the responsibility of the Public Authority

5
concerned as custodian of the file to ensure their safe custody. For having failed
to do so and thus having resulted in harassment and undue delay in response to
appellant Shri Ram Prakash’s request for information, we accept the plea for
compensation for detriment suffered u/s 19 (8) sub0section (b). In that case we
direct that an amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) be paid to
him by the Sum & JJ Wing of the DDA under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P.
Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission. This payment will follow on the
elapsing of the fifteen days allowed to respondents for tracing and providing the
information sought and take no more than twenty days from the date of receipt of
this Decision Notice.

The appeal is allowed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision
be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
25.8.2008

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
25.8.2008

6