Central Information Commission
Rear Admiral (Retd.) R. C. Jagota vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 11 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/107145,
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/109779,
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113624 &
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113623
Rear Admiral (Retd.) R. C. Jagota ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg.-I), SDMC, Aurobindo
Marg, Green Park, New Delhi ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Through: Sh. Rajeev Kumar Singh - OI(B-I)
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2019
Date of Decision : 05.09.2019
Show Cause Hearing : 07.11.2019
Date of Decision : 11.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
107145 17.09.2018 05.10.2018 15.11.2018 13.12.2018
109779 26.09.2018 27.11.2018 09.11.2018 26.11.2018
113624 09.01.2019 Nil 21.02.2019 01.03.2019
113623 09.11.2018 12.12.2018 13.12.2018 26.12.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/107145 Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.09.2018 seeking information regarding B-98, Hill View Apartments, about some construction on the terrace of the building. He sought copies of all papers/correspondence and noting on the MCD file whereby sanction had been accorded for the construction.Page 1 of 7
PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg-I), South Zone, vide letter dated 05.10.2018 forwarded information to the Appellant, as provided by the concerned PIO stating that the owners of the premises had requisite permission under DDA's Add./Alt. policy in respect of the concerned premises.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 15.11.2018. FAA vide order dated 13.12.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/109779 Appellant filed RTI application dated 26.09.2018 seeking information on 7 points, inter alia:
1. Dimensions of Main Room on Terrace
(a) Whether the sanction for the room on the terrace provides for this room to be larger in size than the ORIGINAL size of the bedroom in the flat below. If so, a copy of the MCD Regulations that allows this be provided.
(b) If the sanctioned size of the room on the terrace is of the same size as the ORIGINAL bedroom in the flat below, provide copies of relevant notings and papers on the file showing the action taken to ensure that the room constructed on the terrace is made according to the size in the sanctioned plan and wall on wall over the ORIGINAL bedroom in the flat below.
2. Additional Room on the terrace (adjacent to the Bathroom)
(a) Dimensions of the Bathroom sanctioned for the terrace.
(b) If the sanctioned length of the bathroom is 14 feet approx a copy of the relevant MCD Regulations allowing a much larger size of Bathroom on the terrace than the size of the Bathrooms in the flat below be provided
3. Roof from the mumty of the main Room on Terrace.
(a) Whether the sanctioned plan includes the provision of a room from the mumty to the main road and allows the fitment of a water tank on this roof. If so, copy of the relevant MCD regulations allowing such structure be provided.
(b)If the construction of the roof from the mumty to the terrace has been regularized by compounding, copy of the relevant MCD regulations permitting this be provided. Etc PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg-I), South Zone, vide letter dated 27.11.2018 forwarded the information to the Appellant, provided by the concerned PIO.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.11.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.11.2018 directed the PIO to provide Page 2 of 7 the information within 10 days as per the provisions of the Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
In compliancewith the FAA order, PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg-I), South Zone, furnished the information vide letter dated 07.12.2018 as directed by FAA.
Still dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113624 Appellant filed RTI application dated 09.01.2019 seeking information regarding B-98, Hill View Apartments. He sought information on three points:
1. Has the owner of B-98, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi complied with the above mentioned order within the timeframe specified therein to remove the unauthorized construction?
2. If the owner of B-98, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has not complied with the above mentioned order, provide copies of all notings, letters and correspondence giving details of further action taken by MCD of remove the unauthorized construction.
3. If the owner of B-98, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has not complied with the above mentioned order, has action been taken to revoke the sanction accorded vide MCD letter no. 10/Bldg-
1/SZ/2018 dated 14.05.2018.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.02.2019. FAA vide order dated 01.03.2019 directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant within 10 days as per the provision of the Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A letter dated 19.08.2019 has been received from the Appellant Rear Admiral R.C. Jagota.
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113623 Appellant filed RTI application dated 09.11.2018 seeking information regarding B-98, Hill View Apartments.He sought information on the following three points:
Page 3 of 71. Whether the owner of B-98, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has provided any reasons for not being able to construct the Barsati adjoining to the mumty when applying for permission to construct the Barsati. If so, a copy of the document giving the reasons be provided.
2. If reasons were given by the owner of B-98, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for not being able to construct the Barsati adjacent to the mumty, whether such reasons were accepted by the MCD. If so, a copy of all papers and notings on the relevant MCD file where this was considered and accepted.
3. If no reasons were provided by the owner of B-98, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for not being able to construct the Barsatiadjacent to the mumty, the basis on which the construction of the Barsati has been allowed at a location not adjoining the mumty be provided with the copies of the relevant rules/regulations under which this has been permitted.
PIO/Exe. Engineer (Bldg-I), South Zone, vide letter dated 12.12.2018 forwarded information to the Appellant a provided by the concerned PIO.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 13.12.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.12.2018 directed the PIO to provide the information within 10 days as per the provisions of the Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A letter dated 19.08.2019 has been received from the Appellant Rear Admiral R.C. Jagota.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for the hearing and the Appellant states that he sought information in the form of four RTI applications about his neighbour occupying the flat above his floor. In the first appeal being number:
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/107145, he sought information including about sanction accorded for carrying out construction on the terrace. He states that though he has been provided information in the form of 10 pages of the file but the sanctioned plan was not given to him though during inspection of records, he found it did exist in the file. Likewise he has pointed out specific instances, in the other three appeals, all related to the same property, with respect to which, he has not been furnished adequate information in answer to his queries.
Respondent present during the hearing states that all four appeals are related to the same grievance of the Appellant, which arises out of some inter se dispute between the Appellant and his neighbour. The Respondent states that they have extended utmost co-operation already and havebeen providing all the Page 4 of 7 information to the Appellant, as permissible under the RTI Act. The Respondent further averred that though they have responded and taken necessary steps to remedy the dispute, the Appellant is still not satisfied with the information. He further states that in terms of the complaint of the Appellant, the deviation in construction carried out by the Appellant's neighbour had been booked and even demolished. The Respondent states that there are two files pertaining to the said property number B-98, which is the property in dispute and he seeks access to the said files.
Decision:
Deliberations during hearing have revealed that the aforementioned four appeals arise out of a dispute between the Appellant and his neighbour, occupying the flat above his floor. Among the queries raised by the appellant, the sanctioned plan of the property of a third party, viz. neighbourhas been sought, which is barred from disclosure since it relates to property of a third party and is not disclosed as such as to not compromise the safety and privacy of a third party. However, if the Appellant desires to inspect the records, he shall be given access to the same to note the dimensions of the sanctioned building plan as such.
With respect to the file number CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/109779, it is noted that the Appellant has produced an order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the First Appellate Authority- Sh. Girish Chand, whereby the PIO was directed to provide point-wise specific response to all the seven queries raised by the Appellant vide his RTI application. The said order dated 10.01.2019 has not been complied with till date. Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs the PIO/EE(B-I) to provide a complete revised and complete reply in response to each of the seven queries, in terms of the FAA's order, within three weeks of receipt of this order. The PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone shall submit a compliance report before the Commission by 30.09.2019, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall be initiated.
With respect to the file no. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113624, it is noted that despite clear and specific directions of the FAA, vide order dated 01.03.2019, no information has been furnished so far. Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs the PIO/EE(B-I) to provide a revised and complete reply in response to each of the three queries, in terms of the FAA's order, within three weeks of receipt of this order. The PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone shall submit a compliance report before the Commission by 30.09.2019, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall be initiated.
With respect to the file no. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113623, it is noted that once again there is clear violation of the specific directions of the FAA. Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs the PIO/EE(B-I) to provide a revised and complete reply in response to each of the three queries, in terms of the FAA's Page 5 of 7 order, within three weeks of receipt of this order. The PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone shall submit a compliance report before the Commission by 30.09.2019, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall be initiated.
Before parting with the case, the Commission observes that these appeals arise out of inter se dispute of the Appellant with his neighbour and this Commission acting within precincts of the RTI Act cannot adjudicate such issues. However, the Commission cannot overlook the advanced age of the Appellant, who happens to be a retired senior naval officer and also because the RTI Act ensures that information sought by every citizen ought to be answered by the public officials, unless disclosure thereof is specifically debarred under provisions of law. In three out of four appeals, the PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone, SDMC has not bothered to comply with the specific directions of the FAA, nor submitted any explanation for such non-compliance and is represented by an OI during the hearing. In view of this, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Notice to Sh. Dev Kumar - PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone, SDMC to explain the wilful default in disclosure of information, non-compliance of orders of the FAA and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, as such. Explanation from the PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone, SDMC must reach the Commission by 27.09.2019, failing which appropriate action as per law shall be initiated.
The appeals are thus decided with these directions.
Facts emerging during hearing: 07.11.2019 Submissions dated 30.09.2019 & 14.10.2019 have been received from Exective Engineer (Building)-I, SDMC - Shri Dev Kumar, relevant extracts whereof are as under:
" The matter has been got examined. It is to inform that in the light of orders of First Appellate Authority, a revised complete reply has duly been furnished to the applicant Rear Admiral (Retd) R.C. Jagota, vide this office letter No. EE(B)-I/SZ/RTI/2019/D/2734 dated 30.09.2019. Alongwith the said reply, a copy of the policy relevant to permitting additions/alterations in DDA Flats has been furnished to the applicant. The applicant has also been provided with the copy of the notings of the sanctioned building plan file No.12/DDA//Addl./Alt./B-I/SZ/2018 dated 02.05.2018 as well as unauthorized construction booking file No. 360/UC/B-I/SZ/2018 dated 25.10.2018. It is relevant to mention that the information/queries contained in the application of the applicant, appear to be assumptions and presumptions in nature. However, in the revised reply, each and every query has been answered based on the policy and available record. The relevant record of the Department has also been got inspected from the applicant It is pertinent to mention that apart from the aforesaid applications, the applicant has submitted several other similar applications containing similar/allied queries, relating to the same property, which have also been replied to by the Department. However, the applicant, if he wishes Page 6 of 7 so, can again visit this office for inspection of any record available with the Department in terms of his applications".
It is noted that vide reply dated 30.09.2019, revised reply to all the three appeals specified above, viz. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/109779, CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113624 and CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/113623 have been sent whereby necessary instructions/guidelines regarding addition/alteration in DDA Flats and other policy related or factual information sought by the appellant. records of the case/s at hand establish the fact that the Respondent has extended due co-operation and provided all the available information from time to time to answer the numerous queries of the appellant in the form of several other similar applications containing similar/allied queries, relating to the same property.
Under the above circumstances, the explanation offered by the respondent- Sh. Dev Kumar - PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone, SDMC is accepted as such and further proceedings against him are hereby dispensed with. Before concluding the decision, the Commission observes that the need for the instant proceeding would not have arisen at all, if the PIO/EE(B-I) would have appeared during the hearing or made appropriate submissions, bringing forth the necessary facts, during the course of the first hearing held on 29.08.2019. It is thus recommended that the public authorities must ensure appropriate representation with complete facts, during the hearing, in order to save time and make the process of the adjudication fruitful and productive. With these observations, the aforesaid appeals are hereby directed to be closed and consigned to record room.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 7 of 7