Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjay Agarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000334/11904
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000334
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal
H.No. E-4/18, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051
Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sharma
PIO & Superintendent Engineer-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
South Zone, Zonal Office Building,
IIIrd Floor, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092
RTI application filed on : 19/08/2010
PIO replied : not attached
First appeal filed on : 25/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 29/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 28/01/2011
Information soughtby the appellant RTI is about illegal construction of Gandhi Nagar.
i) The appellant has asked regarding 50 illegal constructions in the areas of Gandhi Nagar, Vidhan Sabha. List attached.
a) Did police inform MCD in written in the relation of above mentioned illegal construction?
b) Did MCD register above construction?
c) Any illegal action is taken by MCD against these constructions? If yes, then what?
d) Is MCD took bribe for these construction?
e) Who is the responsible J.E. and beldar during the above illegal construction?
f) Did local J.E. can apart from the responsibility of these illegal constructions? If no,
then what action should take against them?
g) Can MCD checkout the secrets of these illegal constructions?
h) Is any legal action will be taken against these illegal constructions? If yes, then when
and what action will be taken.
i) Is these illegal construction are contempt of Delhi High Court and MCD Act?
j) Is MCD, take the information of Delhi Police as wrong?
k) Is these illegal constructions were held under pressure of Politicians?
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
I have gone through the reply of the PIO. The PIO is directed to go through the record and provide specific and point wise reply to the appellant within a week. Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information given after the order of the FAA. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agarwal;
Respondent : Mr. J. P. Verma, EE(B) on behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sharma, PIO & SE-II;
The Respondent states that a reply was sent to the Appellant on 21/10/2010 but has no evidence to show that this was dispatched. The Appellant states that he has not received this. The Appellant states that he has received the information on 04/04/2011 personally in which the information provided is false. The Appellant had given 15 properties and sought information on unauthorized construction on this. In a second query he had asked whether Delhi Police had informed MCD about this. The information provided to him was that no unauthorized construction on the records of MCD and that Delhi Police has not provided any information to MCD about the illegal construction. The Appellant has produced before the Commission a number of papers by which Delhi Police has not informed MCD about the illegal and unauthorized construction going on. It appears that there is a collusion between MCD officials and those engaged in unauthorized construction because of which the information is delayed and false information is provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. J. P. Verma to provide the correct information to the appellant before 25 April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 11 May 2011 at 11.00am 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.
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 07 April 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MS)