Central Information Commission
Ram Narain vs Mcd on 20 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144143
CIC/NDMCR/A/2023/139758/MCDND
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146599
RAM NARAIN .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Office of the Executive
Engineer/(M-I)-RZ, Road No.
44, Pitampura, Delhi - 110034
2. PIO,
Office of The Ex. Engineer (B)- I,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Rohini Zone, Sector-V, Delhi - 110085 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025
Date of Decision : 19.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for disposal
through common-order as these are based on similar RTI applications of the
same appellant.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144143
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 28.07.2023, 03.10.2023
Page 1 of 13
First appeal filed on : 04.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Please supply me the copy of the report of action taken/not taken of the following
(i) My complaint to DC diary 9901 dt 01.01.2023 with copy to EE-M-I Rohini Zone
(ii) My letter to DC Diary No 10158 dt 16.1.23.
(iii) My letter to EE-MI diary No. 4911 dt 25.1.2023.
(iv) My letter to DC diary dt. 22.2.23.
(v) My letter to DC diary dt 24.2. 23."
The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.07.2023 stating as under:
"Information sought by applicant does not pertains to EEM-Z/RZ. There is no Imminent danger to this property. Matter relates to Unauthorized construction in shape of upper floors in property no H-1/193-194 sector 11 Rohini.
The RTI May be transferred to building deptt/RZ."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.09.2023, held as under:
"During the course of hearing, RTI application and PIO have been gone through and found NOT SPECIFIC with the contents of RTI application. Moreover, representative of PIO informed that copy of letters mentioned in the RTI application were not found enclosed with RTI application. In this response, photocopy of all such letters were handed over to the representative of PIO by the appellant during the course of hearing.
PIO/EE(M)-I/RZ is hereby directed to go the through the contents of RTI application and furnish the specific modified/correct reply to the appellant within 10 days on receipt of these orders, as per provisions of RTI Act.Page 2 of 13
The appeal is disposed off with the above-said orders."
In compliance of FAA's order, the PIO/EE(M-1) RZ, MCD furnished a revised reply to the appellant on 03.10.2023 stating as under:
"...After examination of letter received by sh. Ram Narain applicant, a inspection has been carried out of said property number H-1/193-94, Sector-11, Rohini by this office and found that there is no imminent danger to this building.
Rest matters pertains to Building Department."
CIC/NDMCR/A/2023/139758/MCDND Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.06.2023 CPIO replied on : 23.06.2023 First appeal filed on : 04.07.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 09.08.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Please supply me the copy of the reports of action taken/not taken of the following
(i) Compliant diary dt. 14.11.2022 (to EE-B-I)
(ii) My letter dt 8.12.2022 diary dt 12.12.2022 (to DC)
(iii) My letter diary dt 23.2.2023 (to DC)
(iv) My letter diary dt 24.2.2023 (to DC)
(v) My letter diary dt 22.2.2023 (to DC)"
The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.06.2023 stating as under:
"Taking cognizance of the complaints of the applicant, the area JE inspected the impugned site and reported that the house of the applicant as well as his neighbour are old and occupied and both plot owners have taken possession of their plots from DDA approx. 25 years back and construction was carried out. No new construction seen in the recent past approx. 8 to 10 years as well as at present, neither building material was found stacked at site nor new construction was noticed at site. As Page 3 of 13 far the issue of the dangerous building is concern complainant has already lodged the complaint in Maintenance Division-I/Rohini Zone."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.08.2023, upheld the reply of PIO.
A written submission dated 07.02.2025 has been filed by Shri Prem Veer Singh, Executive Engineer (V)-I/PIO, MCD, RZ is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...➤ Applicant filed an RTI application on 08.06.2023 (at CSB Counter) and same was received in this office on 09.06.2023, seeking action taken report of his 04 nos. of complaints. PIO/EE(B)-I/RZ furnished the information/reply on 23.06.2023 (Annexure-A).
➤ Being aggrieved with the reply of PIO, appellant approached to FAA and FAA disposed-off the case with the findings that reply furnished by the PIO is found satisfactory (Annexure-B).
➤ Thereupon, appellant approached to Hon'ble CIC and copy of the same was also endorsed to PIO/EE(B)-I/RZ. In compliance of said memo, appellant was apprised that action against the unauthorized construction taken place in property No. H-1/193-194, Sector 11, Rohini Delhi 110085, has been initiated by the Department under Section 343 & 344 of DMC Act vide booking No. 05/UC- 22/B-I/RZ/2024 dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure-C). It may also be appreciated that above facts shows that PIO had furnished the information to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act-2005. But, applicant has some disputes with his neighbourer property No. H-1/193 & 194, Sector 11, Rohini, w.r.t. taken place of unauthorized construction, which is taken place approx. 25 years back.
The correlated facts of the case are as under:-
In compliance of show cause notice served under section 343 and 344 (i) of DMC Act-1957, a personal hearing was accorded to the owner of impugned property. After going through the records submitted by the owner during the course of hearing it revealed that Amalgamation of two plots i.e. 193-194, Pocket H-1, Sector 11, Rohini from ground Floor to 3d Floor and projection on Municipal land from Ground Floor to 3th Floor (2nd and 3rd Floor without any sanction building plan) is totally unauthorized and thus actionable under section343 & 344 of DMC Act 1957 but as G.F., 1st Floor, 2nd Floor & 3rd Floor upto covered area of 21.69 Sqm is protected under the Act National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (special Provisions) second amendment bill 2023 and it protected under this Act till 31 December 2026. However, owner of the impugned property was directed to carry Page 4 of 13 out the demolition of the 3rd Floor beyond the covered area of only 21.69 sqm. of booked on account of unauthorized construction within 06 days from receipt of this order, failing which the 3rd floor beyond the covered area of only 21.69 sqm shall be demolished by the MCD at the risk and costs of owner. Accordingly, two attempts dated 07.05.2024 & 10.06.2024, respectively, were made by MCD, but due to non availability of Police force demolition action could not be taken up. In addition to above, it is pointed out here that due invoke of GRAP conditions in Delhi and enforcement of Modal Code of Conduct for Delhi Assembly Election-
2025, demolition action could not be initiated against the impugned property in the recent past.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146599 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.07.2023 PIO replied on : 20.07.2023 First appeal filed on : 14.08.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 14.09.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.11.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Application under RTI Act 2005 with reference to my complaint dt 14.11.2022 to EE, B-I please supply me the copy of building sanction plan of all the 4 floors of my neighboring House No 193/194 H-I section-XI, Rohini. If not sanctioned then action taken report/action to be taken report in view of (i) SDM letter 9820/Tel/AR/2023/70358-60 dt 3.5.2023 received by you (ii) DDA letter F3 (2)/AE-III/RPD-3/DDA/2022-23/757 dt 5.6.2023 copy received by you, (iii) the fact/rule that action should be taken for building without sanctioned building plans irrespective of their date of construction and (iv) section 343 of DMC Act."
The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.07.2023 stating as under:
"Prima-facie, it is to inform that applicant is seeking the building of his neighbouring H.No. 193, 194 H-1, Sector 11, Rohini, which is a 3rd party information and same has been restricted as per provisions of RTI Act- 2005.Page 5 of 13
Now, it is to inform that as per available record this office is not having the building plan of H.No. 193, 194 H-1, Sector 11, Rohini and not having any action taken report w.r.t. complaint dated 14.11.2022.
As far issue, action to be taken, in this regard, it is submitted that the impugned properties are old and occupied. No new construction has been taken place in the recent past approx. 08 to 10 years.
As far the issue of dangerous building, in this regard, it is to inform that matter pertains to Maintenance Division-I/RZ, therefore, the instant RTI application is being transferred to PIO/EE(M)-I/RZ to furnish the reply of such points pertaining with Maintenance Division-I/RZ to the applicant directly, as per provisions of RTI Act. It is also to mention here that all previous complaints have already been forwarded to Maintenance Division-I/RZ."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 14.09.2023, held as under:
"During the course of hearing, RTI application and PIO have been gone through and found NOT SPECIFIC with the contents of RTI application. PIO/EE(B)-I/RZ is hereby directed to go through the contents of RTI application and furnish the specific modified/correct reply to the appellant within 10 days on receipt of these orders.
The appeal is disposed off with the above-said orders."
In compliance of FAA's order, the PIO furnished a revised pointwise reply to the appellant on 26.09.2023 stating as under:
1. "In reference to SDM letter bearing 9820/teh/Al/2023/70358-60 dated 03.05.2023, it is to inform that said was received in this office on10.05.2023 and further marked to area JE by the concerned AE.
2. As far issue of action taken report/action to be taken on the above-said reference, in this regard, it is submitted that impugned property bearing No. 193-194 & 195 H Block Sector 11, Rohini was inspected by the area JE (B) and found that all the properties are old and occupied. No new construction has been taken place in the recent past approx. 08 to 10 years and no building material was found stacked at site at the time of inspection.
3. In reference to DDA letter bearing F-3(2)/AE-III/RPD-3/DDA/2022-23/757 dated 05.06.2023, in this regard, it is to inform that said was received in Page 6 of 13 this office on 12.06.2023 and further marked to area JE by the concerned AE. For rest of action may please see the reply of point No. I para ii above.
4. It is to inform that as per available record this office is not having the building plan of H.No. 193, 194 H-1, Sector 11, Rohini as the possession was taken over by the applicant from DDA approx. 25 years back and construction was taken thereafter. Action against the violation sanctioned building plan has been initiated as per provisions of relevant clause of DMC Act.
5. The sought information is not clear & specific."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
A written submission dated 07.02.2025 has been filed by Shri Prem Veer Singh, Executive Engineer (V)-I/PIO, MCD, RZ is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...➤ Applicant filed an RTI application on 10.07.2023 asking action taken report/ action to be taken report of his 04 nos. of complaints. PIO/EE(B)-I/RZ furnished the information/reply on 23.06.2023 (Annexure-A). ➤ Being aggrieved with the reply of PIO, appellant approached to FAA. The compliance of FAA order has been made vide No. D-228/EE(B)-I/RZ dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure-B).
➤ Thereupon, appellant approached to Hon'ble CIC and copy of the same was also endorsed to PIO/EE(B)-I/RZ. In compliance of said memo, appellant was apprised that action against the unauthorized construction taken place in property No. H-1/193-194, Sector 11, Rohini Delhi 110085, has been initiated by the Department under Section 343 & 344 of DMC Act vide booking No. 05/UC- 22/B-I/RZ/2024 dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure-C). It may also be appreciated that above facts shows that PIO had furnished the information to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act-2005. But, applicant has some disputes with his neighbourer property No. H-1/193 & 194, Sector 11, Rohini, w.r.t. taken place of unauthorized construction, which is taken place approx. 25 years back.
The correlated facts of the case are as under:-
In compliance of show cause notice served under section 343 and 344 (i) of DMC Act-1957, a personal hearing was accorded to the owner of impugned property. After going through the records submitted by the owner during the course of hearing it revealed that Amalgamation of two plots i.e. 193-194, Pocket H-1, Sector 11, Rohini from ground Floor to 3d Page 7 of 13 Floor and projection on Municipal land from Ground Floor to 3th Floor (2nd and 3rd Floor without any sanction building plan) is totally unauthorized and thus actionable under section343 & 344 of DMC Act 1957 but as G.F., 1st Floor, 2nd Floor & 3rd Floor upto covered area of 21.69 Sqm is protected under the Act National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (special Provisions) second amendment bill 2023 and it protected under this Act till 31 December 2026. However, owner of the impugned property was directed to carry out the demolition of the 3rd Floor beyond the covered area of only 21.69 sqm. of booked on account of unauthorized construction within 06 days from receipt of this order, failing which the 3rd floor beyond the covered area of only 21.69 sqm shall be demolished by the MCD at the risk and costs of owner. Accordingly, two attempts dated 07.05.2024 & 10.06.2024, respectively, were made by MCD, but due to non availability of Police force demolition action could not be taken up. In addition to above, it is pointed out here that due invoke of GRAP conditions in Delhi and enforcement of Modal Code of Conduct for Delhi Assembly Election-2025, demolition action could not be initiated against the impugned property in the recent past.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent No. 1: Shri Yogender Singh, AE (Civil)/APIO, MCD (M I), Rohini Zone, Delhi present in person.
Respondent No. 2: Shri Anurag Shandilya, AE (Buidling)/APIO, MCD (M I), Rohini Zone, Delhi present in person.
Written submissions of the appellant and the respondent are taken on record.
The appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 03.02.2025, relevant extracts of which (case-wise) are reproduced below in verbatim-
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144143 "...Respectfully submitted that my applications to the respondent supporting brief facts are annexed at (Pg.No14 to 16) The CPIO did not acknowledge, in his reply to RTI, that my neighbors' building is dangerous inspite of the facts mentioned at (Page No 17 to 18) Page 8 of 13 However as per letter dated 10.1.24. (Pg 19) the PIO Committed to remove encroachment but, inspite of my letter to FAA dtd. 12.4.2024 (pg. 20) it has not so far been removed and inspite of my letter PGC dtd. 22.7.2024 (pg. 21) and its direction to MCD dt 1.8.2024 (Page 22) and even reaching Lokayukt letter dated 21.11.2024 (Page 23) There is no law before PI0 of denial to take action, bring it on record and Supply it to me under RTI Act. Law of procedure cannot supersede law of the land to meet the end of the justice. No other law can over rule my constitutional right to life under Art 21 of the constitution when my neighbour's building is dangerous in case of earthquake and speed justice in such Cases is a fundamental right (Page 24 ).
It is evident that the PIO is not deliberately and Knowingly taking action to protect the wrongdoer and its property. So In addition to the prayer made in my appeal the action against the PIO u/s. 255 of BNS 2023 is also attracted.
Your honour may pass any order in favour of the appellant..."
CIC/NDMCR/A/2023/139758/MCDND "...Respectfully submitted that. my application to the respondent PIO supporting brief facts is annexed at( Page No. 16 to 20) Documents supporting my RTI application at page No. 3 are annexed at (Pg. No. 21 to 24.) Document in support of the appeal document at Pg. 9 is annexed herein at (Pg No.25). As CPIO has claimed that he has Completed the actions taken report, on my application at 14.11.2022 by booking the neighbour's property under booking No. 05/0C-22B-I/R2/2024 of 11.1.2024 which is incomplete, incorrect and misleading, your copy of reply by me is annexed here at (Page 26-27) opposing their claim In spite of my letter to PGC (Page 28) and its direction to MCD dt 1.8.2024 (Pg. 29) and even they reading Lokayukt letter dt. 21.11.2014 (Pg.30) No action of demolition and on incomplete booking has been taken so far and on what are the duty bound there is no love before the on the basis of which the can deny taking action under RTI Act love procedure cannot supersede the. Law of land no other rule and over rule my constitutional right to life under article 21 of the constitution and right to property when the. neighbours building on danger in case of earthquake it is evidence that the person is not knowingly taking action to protect the. wrong door and his property shown in addition to the prayers made in my appeal. Action against the PIO under section 255 of BNS 2023. Is also attracted keeping in view also the. Annexure to page no. 10 and 11 of my appeal any other order in my favour and again is a PIO be passed as deem fit.
Page 9 of 13CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146599 "...Supporting brief facts is annexed at (Page no. 16-20) My neighbour's property was booked on 11.1.2024 under booking No 05/18-228- 7/22/2024 by the CPIO as per (Page No. 21) claiming that he has completed the action taken report on my application dt 14.11.2022 which is Incorrect and misleading and the order booking dt. 16.04.2024 as it (Page No. 22025). It was opposed by me in my reply dt. 09.05.2024 at (Pg.
26) and RTI its appeal and further RTI application at (Pg. 27-28) regarding asking for measurement reports but neither measurement report has been supplied nor any further action of demolition on the booking has been taken so far after 10.6.2024 (Pg. No. 29) inspite of my letter dt 22.7.2024 to PGC (at Pg.No.30) and its direction to MCD dt 1.8.2023 (Pg. No 31 ) and inspite of their own order of booking (at Page 24A) only 21.67 Sqm area at IIIrd floor in protected. Although in cases like me where Art 21 the Constitution and Constitutional right to property is applicable nothing is protected and the Act has been misapplied. According to the annexures at (Pg No. 9,10 & 32) demolition action should have taken as there is no law of before the CPIO to withheld information after bringing on record. Low of procedure cannot supersede the laws of the land to meet the end of the justice As my neighbour's building is dangerous the CPIO is Knowingly taking action of demolition protect the wrong doer. So, in addition to the prayer made in my appeal the action against the CPIO u/s 255 of BNS 2023 is attracted and any other order in favour of me also be granted as deem fit...."
The respondent submitted that reply along with relevant action taken report in response to each RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. Further, by taking cognizance of the complaints under reference, a show cause notice was served on the owner and a hearing of the same was conducted under section 343 and 344 (i) of DMC Act, 1957. He added that later it was found that ground floor, first Floor, 2nd Floor & 3rd Floor upto covered area of 21.69 sq. mtr. is protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) second amendment Act, 2023 and it is protected under this Act till 31 December 2026. However, owner of the impugned property was directed to carry out the demolition of the 3rd Floor beyond the covered area of only 21.69 sqm. booked on account of unauthorized construction within 06 days from receipt of the said order, failing which the 3rd floor beyond the covered area of only 21.69 sqm shall be demolished by the MCD at the risk and costs of owner. Accordingly, two attempts dated 07.05.2024 and 10.06.2024, were made by MCD, but due to non availability of Police force, demolition action could not be taken up. In addition to above, it is pointed out that due to Page 10 of 13 invoking of GRAP stipulations in Delhi and enforcement of Model Code of Conduct for Delhi Assembly Election 2025, demolition action could not be initiated against the impugned property in the recent past. But the same will be done in due course.
The appellant interjected to contest that protection accorded to the property under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (special Provisions) Act was illegal and it was allegedly done by the respondents only to protect the vested interest in favour of owner. In response, the respondent apprised that their order is appealable in the Appellate Tribunal at Tis Hazari Court.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the issue raised by him regarding unauthorized construction on the property in question was not properly addressed by the respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent claimed that they have categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
It further appears that the Appellant during hearing is harbouring a grievance related to unauthorized construction and is also challenging the veracity of information furnished by the PIO and has not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the PIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under: The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:Page 11 of 13
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) No intervention of the Commission is required in these matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 12 of 13 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of the Supdg. Engineer - 1, Rohini Zone, Sector V, Delhi - 110085 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)