Central Information Commission
Harindra Chaurasiya vs Mcd on 30 September, 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/C/2024/110484
Harindra Chaurasiya ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Asst. Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block,
Keshav Puram, Delhi - 110035 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025
Date of Decision : 30.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10.08.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 02.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 10.08.2023 seeking the following information:
" नगर वधान सभा े के शकूरपरु वाड नंबर 69-N के अंतगत आने वाल इं दरा कॉलोनी जे जे $ल%टर म( अवैध *प से रबर बनाने क+ फै$- चलाने ू ण के स5दभ म( इं दरा कॉलोनी RWA 6वारा और उस से होने वाले 2दष Page 1 of 7 13/07/2022 को 7ी मान उपाय$ ु त महोदय 9य:ु न;सपल कारपोरे शन ऑफ द=ल केशव परु म जोन म( द ;शकायत प के संदभ म( :न9न;ल>खत सच ू नाएं उपलAध कराएं:-
1. इं दरा कॉलोनी म( सत(दर S/O जय 2काश R/O A-230/87 इं दरा कॉलोनी नाम के Dयि$त रहते हF तथा कॉलोनी म( रबर के वारसल बनाने क+ फै$- चला रहे $या वह फै$- वैध या अवैध है ।
2. कॉलोनी म( रबर के वारसल बनाने क+ फै$- अगर अवैध है 9य:ु न;सपल कारपोरे शन ऑफ द=ल केशव परु म जोन 6वारा उस पे $या क़ानूनी कायवाह ह गयी उसक+ 2मा>णत कॉपी 2दान कर( ।
3. 9य:ु न;सपल कारपोरे शन ऑफ द=ल केशव परु म जोन 6वारा $या कॉलोनी म( रबर के वारसल बनाने क+ फै$- चलाने का लाइस(स 2ाJत है अथवा नह ं। अगर 2ाJत है तो लाइस(स क+ 2मा>णत कॉपी 2दान कर( ।
4. कॉलोनी म( रबर के वारसल बनाने क+ फै$- चलाने 2दष ू ण हो रहा है या नह ं।
5. इं दरा कॉलोनी म( रबर के वारसल बनाने क+ फै$- चलाने क+ ;शकायत Kकस अLधकार के पास थी उनका नाम और पो%ट बताया जाए।
6. इं दरा कॉलोनी RWA 6वारा 13/07/2022 द ;शकायत पर $या RWA पदाLधकMरयN सद%य म( से Kकसी ने समझौता Kकया अथवा अपनी ;शकायत वा पस ल है तो उस का नाम और पद बताये तथा उस पदाLधकार के पास $या RWA 2ाLधकार प था।
7. इं दरा कॉलोनी RWA 6वारा 13/07/2022 द ;शकायत पर अगर समझौता हुआ या अपनी ;शकायत वा पस ल है तो िजस अLधकार के स9मख ु यह समझौता हुआ उनका नाम पद बताये तथा समझौते क+ 2मा>णत कॉपी 2दान कर(
8. इं दरा कॉलोनी RWA के उस पदाLधकार क+ िजसने ;शकायत वा पस ल या समझौता Kकया उसके इं दरा कॉलोनी RWA 2ाLधकार प क+ 2मा>णत कॉपी 2दान कर( ।"
2. Having not received any response from PIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.01.2024, held as under.
"Sh. Harinder Chaurasiya appeared before the undersigned and during the course of hearing, he informed that no information has been received till date hence, he preferred the appeal.Page 2 of 7
AC/KPZ, PIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information to the appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order..."
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Ravi Yadav, SSA along with Shri Sharad Yadav, Admin Officer/APIO (appeared late) present in person.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on the Respondents while filing the same in CIC on 05.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
5. The Complainant contended that final action taken report on his complaint has not been provided to him till date. Hence, this Complaint before the Commission.
6. The Respondents submitted that upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission vide their letter dated 19.09.2025, complete information was provided to the Complainant. During hearing, he handed over a copy of their reply to the Complainant which is taken on record. Relevant contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
" In pursuance of Notice of hearing for appeal/complaint for File No. CIC/MCDND/C/2024/110484 DATED 01.09.2025 in the case of Shri Harinder Chaurasiya, *********, Delhi-110035.
In view of above, an inspection was carried out by the concerned Licensing Inspector on dated 11.09.2025 and found that the 02 factories is running in residential area. The factory engaged in manufacturing of Rubber Washer/Ring is running without factory license/Municipal Trade License with domestic Electricity connection and creating pollution. The related photographs of factory are attached herewith. This is clear violation of the directions of the NGT.Page 3 of 7
In this regard, A Show Cause Notice for sealing has been issued vide D.No. 660 & 661/DC/AC/KPZ/2025 dated 15.09.2025 to stop the workshop/polluting unit (photocopy enclosed herewith)."
7. The Respondent volunteered to check the records and provide latest status of the matter beginning from date of filing of RTI application i.e. from 10.08.2023 to the Complainant either in-person or through his authorized representative.
8. The Commission advised the Respondent to give option to the Complainant to associate in the inquiry process. The Complainant on his part submitted that he would consider the same.
9. The Respondent further submitted that the post of PIO in their office is lying vacant from the past one week and there is no Link Officer in their office and due to this RTI related work is pending in the absence of any PIO. Decision:
10. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondents and perusal of records, observed that as per the Respondents information/reply has now been furnished to the Complainant vide letter dated 19.09.2025. This reply is in tune with the RTI Act and is being upheld.
11. The Respondent during the hearing could not explain the reasons for not providing any information/reply to the Complainant. He, on behalf of the then PIO tendered unconditional apology for the same, which the Commission is not inclined to accept.
12. Prima Facie, there appears to be a mala fide on part of the then PIO, Shri P K Singh. The delay caused in the matter appears to be deliberate because the matter involves a gross violation of the existing Laws including those relating to pollution and traffic congestion in a residential area caused by an unauthorized factory. Therefore, the then PIO, Shri P K Singh is Show Caused as to why penal action should not be taken against him under the RTI Act. The written explanation of the then PIO through the present PIO should reach the Commission within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
13. Shri Sharad Yadav, present APIO to serve a copy of this order to Shri P K Singh, the then PIO on his current correspondence address. In case of any Page 4 of 7 difficulty in serving this order, he is at liberty to take help from the present FAA.
14. FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
15. In addition, the Commission would also like to invite attention of the parties towards a similar issue adjudicated by this Bench on the complaints regarding unauthorized construction in the case File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146739 (Rakesh Singh v. PIO, O/O Executive Engineer (Building), MCD) where the Commission has made the following observations-
"...Lax action by the Respondent Public Authority against the building laws violation and also against illegal construction results in population density increase. This in turn puts additional pressure on civic amenities far beyond initially planned and provided for. It also entails additional works should the authority decides to enhance the scope of civic amenities. All this adds to the pollution load of the NCR which is already exceeding the permissible limits causing untold misery to its residents. In innumerable cases of similar nature, Appellants during the hearing in the Commission have levelled allegations of collusion between the violators/offenders and the concerned employees of the Respondent public authority. Therefore, the following advisory.
A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case revealed that there is procedural flaw in the Respondent Public Authority wherein the concerned authority does not associate the Complainant while taking action on complaints and disposing the complaints and they also do not disclose the broad outcome of the complaint; thus, forcing the citizens to seek the same under RTI Act. This is an avoidable burden on the system. In order to ensure speedy disposal of the complaints in the Respondent Public Authority, it is advised to associate the complainant in the complaints' inquiry/disposal process and also provide broad outcome of the inquiry so that the Complainant is not obstructed from availing judicial remedies. Association of the complainant in the complaints process would enable the public authority to:
• Obtain clarification on the complaints, if required • Provide the complainant with updates on the status of the complaints • Facilitate a fair and transparent resolution of the complaints.Page 5 of 7
• Enable the Complainant to agitate the matter further should he wish to do so.
An advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to take the following steps:
1. Acknowledge the receipt of the complaints.
2. Offer the complainant an opportunity to provide additional information or clarification, if required.
3. Provide the complainant an opportunity to associate in the inquiry process/proceeding so as to allay the apprehension the Complainant of any collusion with the alleged violator/offender.
4. Ensure that the complainant is informed of the decision on the complaints and the reasons for such decision so that Complainant gets an opportunity to escalate the same further or seek judicial remedy.
By associating the complainant in the complaints process, the public authority can ensure that the complaints are disposed of in a fair, transparent, and timely manner. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking these sorts of information. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the FAA is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action."
16. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it has been further observed that disposal of RTI applications and first appeals gets delayed due to the absence on transfer or being on leave of the designated Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs). This adversely affects timely compliance with the statutory timelines prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005.
17. In this regard, the Commission would like to invite attention of the parties towards a similar issue been dealt by this Bench in case File No. CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/127212 (Urmila Lodhi v. PIO, Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies) decided on 19.09.2025 with the following advisory-
"......
XI. In order to ensure uninterrupted functioning and accountability in handling RTI applications/appeals even during absence/transfer/leave of CPIO, it is advisable that a mechanism for Page 6 of 7 assigning another officer of equivalent rank as Link Officer for CPIO or appointing APIOs be institutionalized in the Respondent Public Authority as is done in the Ministries of Govt. of India. XII. Implementation of the above mechanism will strengthen transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the functioning of the office, and will also ensure that the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005 is fulfilled without procedural delays.
XIII. Ms. Renu Shekhawat, Joint Director (Admin) is directed to ensure compliance. The present CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the Joint Director (Admin.).
18. The above-mentioned advisories also hold good for the instant case as well. In pursuance of these advisories, the FAA is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authorities for necessary action.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi - 110035.Page 7 of 7
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)