Central Information Commission
Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd on 21 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MCDND/A/2023/623033
Sachhin Sapra .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Executive Engineer-1 Building,
MCD West Zone, Second Floor,
Dr. Sahib Singh Verma Nigam
Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New
Delhi - 110027 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2024
Date of Decision : 19.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.02.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 13.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.04.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. In respect of 9 property nos e 1, e 14, w 30 b, j 12/1, j 12/3, j12/6, j 12/12, j 12/17, j 12/19 rajouri garden please provide following information Page 1 of 13
2. Copy of latest building plan on the basis of which construction in above 9 properties is ongoing or recently completed.
3. Copy of building sanction file, unauthorized construction demolition and unauthorized construction sealing files till date of providing information in above 9 properties
4. Provide exact details of unauthorized construction booking and detailed nature and type of deviation in above 9 properties
5. Number of residential dwellings units sanctioned along with number of non- residential units sanctioned in above 9 properties
6. Provide number of ECS required and sanctioned in above 9 properties
7. Provide copy of completion certificate issued in respect of above 9 properties
8. Whether unauthorized construction in above properties have been fully removed/demolished in above 9 properties
9. Provide copy of stop work, demolition and sealing notices and orders issued/passed in respect of above properties
10. Provide copy of response received from violators in respect of above notices and orders issued/passed.
11. Basements in above 9 properties were sanctioned for what use/purpose.
12. Provide names of concerned mcd officials who are responsible under law to take time bound action on unauthorized construction and misuse of properties in rajouri garden colony."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.04.2023, held as under:-
"The case was taken up for hearing today i.e. 06.04.2023. Sh. Sachin Sapra, appellant was present. Sh. Ashwani Dabas, AE (Bldg.) was present on behalf of PIO/EE(B)-I/WZ.
During the course of hearing, the applicant informed that no reply has been received till date. PIO/EE(B)-1/WZ is directed to provide the reply to the applicant as sought by him within a period of 10 days..Page 2 of 13
The appeal is accordingly disposed off."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Surander Singh Dabas, APIO-cum-Assistant Engineer (Civil), attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that information regarding building plans as sought in point No. 2 of the RTI Application should be made public and, in this regard, he referred a circular issued by Additional Commission (Engg.), MCD, dated 29.07.2024, in which several directions were issued in public interest wherein, building plans are to be disclosed in public domain so that violators can be detected. The relevant extract of the circular dated 29.07.2024 is reproduced herein:
"SUB:- Urgent measures to prevent misuse of basement and other related matters. As you are well aware a tragic incident occurred in the basement of a coaching institute for IAS aspirants located at Old Rajender Nagar on Saturday, the 27th of July 2024 which resulted into loss of life of three students due to flashflood caused because of choked sewer line / storm water drainage system. Needless to say that it is the primary responsibility of MCD to provide a safe and liveable city to the Public and all out efforts who prevent such unfortunate incidents cannot / will not be allowed to reoccur.
In this regard, a delegation of students met the Commissioner on Sunday, the 28th of July 2024 and expressed their concerns on this issue. It was explained to them by the Commissioner that MCD will take all necessary steps urgently so as to prevent such a mishap in future. The following directions are accordingly conveyed for immediate action and compliance;-
The building having basement be got surveyed and immediate action including sealing be taken against those who are found misusing the same. There should be separate entry and exit gates for basement. All building plans shall be made available in public domain, so that the violators can be detected. All encroachments above drains / footpaths shall be removed.Page 3 of 13
The storm water drains shall be fully desilted and choking at any point shall be got cleared with the help of super-sucker machines. In case fresh drain is required at any place, immediate proposal for the same be put up.
The portable pumps alongwith operators shall be kept ready for dewatering of vulnerable points of water logging (which have already been identified). The open hanging wires / cables shall be got surveyed and immediate necessary action be taken in close coordination with NDPL/BSES.
The private concessionaire shall be sensitized to ensure quick removal of the garbage as there is putrefaction of the same during rainy season resulting into foul smell. In some of the zones, there are old barrels catering to combined drainage i.e. sewer and storm water. These barrels should be got surveyed to avoid any untoward incident on account of settlement.
The urinal/toilets which are in poor condition shall be immediately improved. The above directions be scrupulously adhered to and strict disciplinary action will be taken against the delinquent officials."
On this aspect, the Appellant vide his written submission dated 05.08.2024, also uploaded various news reports showing that how owners of building violate building bye laws and master plan of Delhi in connivance with MCD officials.
The Respondent submitted that in compliance to First Appellate Authority's order dated 06.04.2023, a pointwise information was given to the Appellant vide letter dated 15.05.2023, wherein the Appellant was informed as under:
"1. No Information sought.
2. It is to inform you that now a days, the building plans in the Municipal jurisdiction are being sanctioned through online system for which file in hard copy is not accepted and not maintained. However, as per offline and online record, the details of building plans and booking of unauthorized construction/deviation of the properties are as under: -
Property NO. Building Plan Booking No. Extent of booking No./ID E-1, Rajouri 38/SP/B(HQ)/SD EE(B)- U/c in the form of deviation Garden MC/2017/D-AE- I/WZ/UC/22/333 at Basement, GF, FF, SF V/106 dt. dated against SBP No. 05.12.2017 01.12.2022 38/SP/B(HQ)/SDMC/2017/D
-AE-V/106 dt 05.12.2017.
E-14, Rajouri 10095535
Garden
W-30B, Rajouri 10094253
Garden
Page 4 of 13
J-12/1, Rajouri 10110694
Garden
J-12/3, Rajouri 10100042
Garden
J-12/6, Rajouri 05/B- EE(B)- Deviation/excess coverage
Garden II/HQ/SDMC/20 I/WZ/UC/18/669 beyond SBP No. 05/B-
17 dt 25.05.17 dated II/HQ/SDMC/2017 25.05.17
24.08.2018 from GF to SF.
J-12/12, Rajouri 207/8/HQ/89 dt
Garden 25.09.89
J-12/17, Rajouri 1010-4088
Garden
J-12/19, Rajouri
Garden
3. As above in 2.
4. Such type of record is not maintained by this office.
5. As above in 4.
6. As above in 4.
7. Such type of record is not available with this office record.
8. As above in 4.
9. Copy of the demolition file of the properties available with this office can be taken from this office on any working days subject to payment of requisite photocopy charges as per RTI Act.
10. As above in 9.
11. As above in 4.
12. At present the building activities of said ward is assigned to Sh. Rajbir Singh JE under the supervision of Sh. Anil Kumar, AE(B)WZ"
He added that upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, a revised reply has also been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 31.07.2024 and the same is available on record.
The Appellant interjected and apprised the bench of the fact that there is a contradiction in the averred replies dated 15.05.2023 and 31.07.2024, wherein the Respondent initially vide letter dated 15.05.2023, has agreed to provide the information on point No. 9 and 10 of the RTI Application subject to payment of fees which had been sought beyond stipulated time frame and now vide reply dated 31.07.2024, the Respondent is denying the information being third party information. He added that the Respondent in the updated reply dated 31.07.2024 has also not provided the relevant weblink on which the information can be accessed.Page 5 of 13
The Commission interjected and counselled the Respondent that in latest reply dated 31.07.2024, the PIO in respect of point No. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application has submitted that that the copies of the building plans are trademark properties of the architect concerned and are third party information which is in complete contravention to their own circular dated 29.07.2024, issued by Additional Commission (Engg.), MCD, to which the Respondent submitted that sanctioned building plans are displayed outside the building.
A written submission has been received from PIO-cum-EE (Bldg.), vide letter dated 31.07.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"Sir, Please refer to the notice for hearing for appeal/Complaint in file number stated above in respect of the appeal/complaint filed by Sh. Sachin Sapra. Vide the said notice the Hon'ble Information Commissioner has listed the case for hearing on 05.08.2024 at 10.30 AM.
In this regard, it is stated that an application under RTI Act, 2005 was filed by Sh. Sachin Sapra on the online RTI Module of SDMC (South Delhi Municipal Corporation) on 10.02.2023. Vide the said RTI, information with respect of 09 (nine) properties have been sought.
In this regard, it is stated that after the merger of the three existing Corporations viz EDMC, SDMC and NDMC, the main Corporation i.e., MCD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) has been formed in the Month of May, 2022. It is further submitted that online RTI Portal of the SDMC was left unattended resulting in non reply of the RTI within time. The department comes to know about the online RTI only after an appeal was made by the appellant with the First Appellate Authority i.e., SE-I/WZ.
After receiving of the appeal by the FAA, the hearing in the matter was held before the FAA on 06.04.2023 in the office of SE-I/WZ, Room No. 105, First floor, Dr. Sahib Singh Verma Nigam Bhawan, West Zone, MCD, near West Gate Mall, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. After hearing on 06.04.2023, the orders were issued with the direction to provide the reply to the applicant as sought by him within a period of 10 days. The said orders were received by this office on 11.04.2023. After receiving the orders of the FAA, the application filed by Sh. Sachin Sapra under the RTI Act was arranged from the office of FAA and on the basis of the records available with this office, the reply to the RTI application was provided to the appellant on 15.05.2023 with some delay which is regretted.
As far as the reply to the RTI application filed by Sh. Sachin Sapra is concerned, the applicant has sought information with respect to 09 properties. All the information sought by the applicant was duly provided to him on the basis of the information available with the office. However, the same were again provided which are as under:
1. Needs no reply as the applicant has given a list of 09 properties situated in the Rajouri Garden for which information was sought.Page 6 of 13
2. In this regard, it is intimated that the Building plans are sanctioned through online mode and the applicants are required to apply on the online system.
There is no need to submit the hard copies of the documents with the department. Similarly, the list of sanctioned/rejected building plan is available on the online system. The department provided the information with respect to the properties for which information sought by the applicant by looking into the online system only. The information which was available on the online system was provided to him on 15.05.2023.
3. The information sought was already provided in the reply on 15.05.2023. In addition, it is stated that the copies of the building plans are trademark properties of the architect concerned and are third party information. As such the department refrains from disclosing/giving copy of the same to the complainants/applicants under the RTI Act. Moreover, the details of unauthorized construction are also available on the website of the MCD which is in public domain.
4. The details of the unauthorized construction are available on the website of the MCD which is in public domain. However, the details of the unauthorized construction as requested by the applicant was already provided to him vide reply dated 15.05.2023.
5. & 6. The information is available in the building plan itself. However, as stated in 03 above, the copy of the same cannot be provided being third party information.
7. The copy of the completion certificate cannot be provided being third party information. Moreover, the information sought is not in larger public interest.
8. The status of the unauthorized construction has already been provided vide reply dated 15.05.2023.
9. &10. The copies cannot be provided being third party information. Moreover, the information sought is not in larger public interest.
11. As per 5 & 6 above.
12. The area field staff including JE(B) is responsible for taking action against the unauthorized construction."
After conclusion of the hearing, a copy of written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.08.2024, wherein the Commission has been informed as under:
"1. The above case was heard today around 2.30 pm today
2. During the hearing PIO AE SS DABAS handed over another RTI reply dated 31" July 2024.
3. As directed by you I am submitting my written submission in the light of fresh reply of PIO as mentioned above. Please find attached attachment detailing my submissions to 12 point rti Page 7 of 13
4. Please note PIO in its second reply dated 31 July 2024 has taken additional grounds to deny information and these grounds were not taken before first appellate authority on 06/04/2023.
5. Further please note PIO in its first reply dated 15/05/23 had agreed to give information in response to serial nos 9 and 10 but in second reply dated 31 July 24 it has refused information citing 3rd party information, information not in public intt etc.
6. In following some of CIC orders in which I was appellant and MCD Bldg deptt was PIO directions have been issued to MCD bldg. department to provide copy of building plans and various details of unauthorized construction and misuse of property available with MCD. It is to be noted these cases MCD had suo moto provided building plans etc and where not provided or denied it was directed to provide by CIC Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001335/5481Adjunct Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001335 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000636/7698 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000636 12 MAY 2010 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002199/9759 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002199 13TH OCT 2010 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443/9761 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443 13 OCT 2010 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443/9761Penalty Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002410+002443 6TH DEC 2010 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000423/12079 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000423 21 APRIL 2011 Building plans and details of unauthorized construction and action taken thereon has been provided by mcd in past UNDER RTI DOCUMENTARY DETAILS SUPPORTING ABOVE IS ANNEXED
7. MCD REQUIRES THAT BUILDING PLAN SHOULD BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ferani Hotels Private Limited vs. the State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 9064- 9065 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32073-32074/ 2015) dated 27.09.2018, wherein it was directed to disclose the building plans, sanctioned plans, and details of commercial establishments in the public domain. The relevant observations are as follows:-
"34. In the end, we would like to say that keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan. The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA requires the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority. In our view, keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided Page 8 of 13 by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA."
IT IS PRAYED THAT PIO BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION TO MY RTI APPLICATION"
After conclusion of the hearing, a copy of additional written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.08.2024, wherein the Commission has been informed as under:
"1. The above case was heard today around 2.30 pm today.
2. In addition to first submission dated 05/08/2024 I am submitting following additional information in support of my oral submissions.
3. Please find attached mcd circular dated 29 July 2024 issued by addil commissioner engineering in which several directions are issued in public interest and inter-alia following direction supports my contention that building plans are not private property or exempt from disclosures and are required to be disclosed in public interest.
All building plans shall be made available in public domain, so that the violators can be detected Copy of above circular is attached on following page
4. Further every building sanction letter issued by mcd requires that building plan be displayed at construction site and in the past building plans have been directed to be issued by CIC in several of my cases as stated in written submission 1.
5. Also please find attached various news reports showing that how owners of building violate building bye laws and master plan of delhi in connivance with MCD officials. If Rau's IAS study circle Old Rajender Nagar Delhi was using basement in accordance with law/as per sanctioned building plan for storage then illegal library would not have been operational and precious young lives would have been saved."
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the reply provided by the PIO vide letter dated 15.05.2023 and 31.07.2024 are contradictory in nature. The Commission admonishes the Respondent Public Authority for providing such vague replies. The Commission agrees with the submissions made by the Appellant during the hearing and accordingly directs the PIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide revised reply by furnishing the relevant information with respect to point No. 2 to 11 of the RTI Application as the exemptions claimed by the Respondent are not admissible in view larger public interest Page 9 of 13 involving safety of citizens' lives, to the Appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the Respondent requires assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions. A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.Page 10 of 13
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Commissioner, MCD, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The Commission would also like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:
"25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Page 11 of 13 Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of 'Monitoring and Reporting' conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority".
26. "For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act."
In furtherance to the above directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Secretary of Central Information Commission vide letter dated 12.02.2024, has requested the Respondent Public Authority, to take necessary action for implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the Respondent is advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking such information and not any specific record. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 12 of 13 Copy To:
1.The FAA, Suptdg. Engineer-1, MCD West Zone, Second Floor, Dr. Sahib Singh Verma Nigam Bhawan, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027
2. Commissioner, MCD, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center, JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)