Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Mr Mithlesh vs Pio Gnctd on 3 May, 2011

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Datt Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 December, 2011

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Club Building (Near Post Office)

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067

Tel: +91-11-26161796

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002384/16219

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002384

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant : Mr Anil Dutt Sharma, D-129, New Seelampur,

Delhi - 110053.

Ph - 9871622255.

Respondent : Mr. V.K. Bhatia Public Information Officer & SE-II

Shahadra North (building-II),

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Zonal Building, Keshav Chowk,

Shahadra, Delhi.

RTI application filed on : 09/03/2011 PIO replied : 16/05/2011 First appeal filed on : 29/05/2011 First Appellate Authority order : Not Given Second Appeal received on : 01/09/2011

Information sought: - Unauthorized construction is being carried out at plot near 1/9269, West Rohtash Nagar Delhi and property no. 9446. Please provide me the information in connection of the said plots or any other plot under construction near by this plot.

1. Provide me report which you have receive any request from above mentioned plots owners for sanctioning the land plan for construction. If yes when.

2. Provide me the exact no. of above mentioned plots. If plot has not been detected then provide me report which was forwarded to the local police under section 466 A of MCD act the name and designation whose duty by law, office order by courts judgment cast upon him and provide me information about the procedure of adopting.

3. If report not forwarded under section 466 A of MCD then provide me information under section 4 (1d) of RTI act.

4. If you found any irregularity in construction provide me action taking report against constructer and provide me particular sections under which normally you have to initiate action against the delinquent constructers.

5. If any Map sanctioned for construction of above mentioned plot then provide me copy of notice under section 6.1 of Delhi Master Plan 2021. If notice has not been received from the constucter then provide me action taking report under section 337(4) of M.C.D. act.

6. If action has not been taken under section 337(4) of MCD act then provide me the name whose duties were to take action but failed to do so.

7. Please provide me name of the person, is empowered to take action against the plots constructers and what action is due against him for not taking action. Page 1 of 4

8. Who is empowered to take against the officer for not taking action against the plot constructers and what action is due against them.

9. Provide me monthly certificate issued by JE under his signature to the effect that there is no unauthorized ongoing construction and/or encroachment on public/government land. (Reference High court Judgment) (Kalyan Sansthan Social Welfare Organization V/s Union of India and Ors) if shortage of ministerial and technical staff then provides me copy of office order or concerned JE and AE has forwarded note to the seniors.

10. If not issued, please provide me under which law/judgment the said certificate was not issued.

11. Provide me action taking report against the JE and AE for not compliance the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

12. In the context of said High Court judgment, please give details regarding unauthorized ongoing construction at above mentioned plot.

13. If not, what action is due against JE and AE for dereliction of duty?

14. Provide me the date and other details about the copies of this certificate issued by JE and action taken plan has been furnished to the concerned Dy. Commissioner with a copy to the Head Quarters who would maintain records of such certificates.

15. Unauthorized construction is a cognizable offence under section 466 A of MCD act. Provide me the detail which you have sent to the local police for taking action.

16. If 466A of MCD act not attracted against the said plot constructer provide me such law there under you have delegated power for giving relaxation to above mentioned plot owner.

17. Provide me the name of JE Architect (with address and phone no.) and AE and provide me exact no. of the plot.

18. Provide me, under which norms you have permitted relaxation to the constructer for not compliance of Clause 7.3.2 of Building bye laws. If relaxation has not been provided then give me proof in compliance of the said clause.

19. Provide me copy of such notice, required for construction of building after sanctioned building plan and before completion certificate.

20. Provide me information about ID reference No. mentioned on this RTI application above.

21. Provide me information about the responsibilities cast upon the Dy.Commissioner of MCD if the subordinate staff failed to take detection or taking action against the unauthorized constructer even though the information already with them by any sources.

PIO response:- Property No, Plot Opp. 9446, West Rohtas Nagar, near 1/9269, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahadra, Delhi:-

1. There is no any kind of information or any record about the property No. Plot opp. 9446, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahadra, Delhi in building department, MCD So, it is not Possible to answer your question.

2. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above. As per office record this office do not deal with such type of verification of address.

3. Answer as per Sr. No. 2 above.

4. Question is not clear. This office deals with conformity with sanction building plan.

5. No notice is received to this office.

6. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above.

7. J.E. (Bldg.) to DC/SH-(North) are empowered to take action against the plot constructor.

8. Answer as per Sr. No. 7 above.

9. Due to overloading of staff there certificates are not in effect.

10. Answer as per Sr. No. 9 above.

11. Not applicable.

12. Not applicable.

13. Not applicable.

14. Answer as per Sr. No. 9 above.

Page 2 of 4

15. Answer as per Sr. No. 9 above.

16. There is no such type of law.

17. JE Sh.G.P. Jaiswal, (Bldg.)-II, AE Sh.V.K.Tyagi (Bldg.)-II, Shahdara North Zone Architect- Answer as per Sr.No.1 above.

18. Answer as per Sr. No. 16 above.

19. Not applicable.

20. ID No.2511.

21. This information is not available in this office.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

No order had passed by First Appellate Authority.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant and no order had passed by FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present

Appellant : Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma;

Respondent : Mr. Ravi Kant Gupta, Asstt. Engineer on behalf of Mr. V.K. Bhatia, Public Information Officer & SE-II;

The Appellant had sought information about unauthorized construction at 1/9269 and 9446, West Rohtash Nagar Delhi. The PIO had stated that there was no information about this on any record. The Appellant shows that he had given a complaint over email to dc-shahd-north@mcd.org.in on 10 March 2011 at 04.51PM. He has also produced information which he has received from DCP North East in which it has been stated that information about this illegal construction had been sent to MCD by the Police Department. The Appellant has also produced before the Commission his complaints about unauthorized construction which he had given at the office of Dy. Commissioner, MCD Shahdara North on 14/12/2010. Thus it appears that false information has been given which appears to be a demonstration of the fact that MCD officials do not wish to acknowledge unauthorized construction. This seems to be a standard modus-operandi whereby the existence unauthorized construction is denied during the construction period and after the construction is over it is claimed that the construction is old and occupied. The respondent states that the person responsible for giving this false information was Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE who was the deemed PIO.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The Commission directs Mr. Ravi Kant Gupta, AE to provide the correct information to the Appellant before 30 December 2011.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE(B-II) Shahdara North Zone within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the order of his superior officer.

Page 3 of 4

It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.

Deemed PIO Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE(B-II) Shahdara North Zone will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 January 2012 at 3.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.

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

09 December 2011

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU)

Copy through Mr. V. K. Bhatia, PIO & SE to:

1- Mr. Tejvir Singh, Deemed PIO & EE(B-II) Shahdara North Zone;

Page 4 of 4