Central Information Commission
Mr.Naveen Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000014/11348
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Navneesh Sharma,
A-28, Second floor, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110028.
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
Public Information Officer & Superintending Engineer(KBZ) Karol Bagh Zone(MCD), Nizam Bhawan, D.B Gupta Road, New Delhi-05 RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010 PIO replied : 13/09/2010 First appeal filed on : 01/10/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 16/10/2010. Second Appeal received on : 29/12/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Under what circumstances re- Reconstruction was not allowed by MCD.
consruction on 3rd floor of plot No.28-A, Naraina Vihar was allowed after it was initially demolished by MCD on 23/05/2008.
2. If MCD has allowed de-sealing, then on As per record desealing was allowed for carrying what basis. out rectification of non-compounable of portion existing in the building.
3. If the seal has been tampered with, what On finding the seal tampered a letter was sent action has been taken against the erring SHO, P.S.Naraina, with the request to take officers as well as Mr. Arora for repeated appropriate action as per law against the tampering of the seal affixed by MCD. owner/occupier of the premises for tampering the seal affixed by the MCD. The question of taking any action against officer or Mr. Arora does not arise.
4. What in your opinion are the legal Action is taken as per provisions of DMC Act, provisions for carrying on the demolition 1957 of the illegal construction on the 3rd floor of the plot No. A.28, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi by MCD.
5. If there are no legal impediments for This office did not allow tampering of the seal or demolition of the illegal construction on opening the same. the above stated why has the MCD not carried out the demolition despite the fact that the said illegal construction was earlier demolished by MCD ON 23/05/2008, illegal construction work was carried on despite the demolition, when the illegal construction resurfaced, MCD sealed the property on 3 different occasions, seal affixed by MCD has been repeatedly allowed to be opened or tampered with.
6. Since the above stated illegal Action has been taken and is being taken as per construction has blocked the access to provisions of DMC Act, 1957. carry out repair work of the water tanks etc. causing hardship to the flat owners what in your opinion are the legal measures that the MCD has taken or can take to demolish the said illegal construction.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply & late reply. Order of the FAA:
Perusal of appeal application indicates that the appellant has received the reply, but is not satisfied with the reply. A copy of the reply sent is on the record. APIO/EE(B) submitted that the applicant has been given a point-wise reply of his RTI application as per information available on record. The appeal is disposed off.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved that the order by the first Appellate Authority and the information was provided by the respondent is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Navneesh Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra, Public Information Officer & SE This matter has been decided vide Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003656/11347 on 07/02/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is infructuous.
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 February 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)