Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Siddharath Sikri vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 September, 2010

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Club Building (Near Post Office),
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                                Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002169/9375
                                                                       Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002169

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                              :      Mr.Siddharath Sikri
                                              J-12/52, Rajouri Garden,
                                              New Delhi-110027.

Respondent                             :      Mr. V. R. Bansal
                                              PIO & Superintending Engineer-I
                                              Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                              West Zone, Rajouri Garden,
                                              New Delhi.

RTI application filed on               :      25/01/2010
PIO replied                            :      Not replied
First appeal filed on                  :      03/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order        :      03/06/2010
Second Appeal received on              :      30/07/2010

Information sought

:

1 Is the construction of new current building done at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 as per approved architectural drawings & plan and as per MCD acts, by laws etc? 2 A true copy of the approved architectural plan by MCD of the new current construction done at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi?

3 Who is the Architect of the new current building at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi? Name and address.

4 Is MCD aware that the basement made at the new building of J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is illegal/ inappropriate/not as per approved plan?

5 If MCD is aware that the basement made at the new building of J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is illegal / inappropriate not as per approved plan, what actions has been taken by MCD to rectify demolish/ seal the building?

6 Is the basement at building of J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi completely illegal unapproved or partially illegal/unapproved?

7 What area of the basement of building at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is approved as per MCD? 8 Is only a portion of the basement of building at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi illegal unapproved?

Yes or No. 9 Has MCD sealed the complete area of the basement at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. If yes, kindly provide the certified copies of noting and correspondence sheets relating to the sealing of the basement of the said building.

10 Has MCD sealed only a portion/ section of basement at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. If yes, kindly provide the certified copies of noting and correspondence sheets relating to the sealing of the portion of the basement of the said building.

11 Names of all the officials of MCD who visited the site at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and sealed a portion or complete area of the basement of the building.

12. When was the sealing of the basement being done at J-12/25, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Give exact date and time duration for which this sealing is done. Under what conditions! circumstances can this seal be removed from the basement of the said building?

13 What laws/by laws/acts/notifications/gazettes of the MCD or other Govt. Body were violated that become the reason for sealing of the basement of the building at J 12/25, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Certified copy of the said laws/by laws/acts etc. 14 (A) Has MCD permitted the use of a portion of the basement at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi apart from the use of basement for parking after knowing the facts that the building already has ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor?

(B) Can the basement be used for other purposes other than for vehicle parking after knowing the facts that the building already has ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor? 15 Is MCD aware that a portion of the basement at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is being used for commercial purposes (sed by a nationalized Bank) apart from use for parking etc. Is yes, is it allowed! permitted? If no, what action has been taken by MCD till now to stop such activities at the basement? Kindly provide certified copies of noting of the file in respect of the same. 16 What is the permissible maximum limit to the height and width of the gate placed towards the service lane of a residential building? Kindly provide certified copies of the Acts! Laws/by laws/notifications of MCD or any other Govt. Body to support the same.

17 Is MCD aware that there is a 20 feet gate being constructed at the back side towards the service lane of the building at J-12!26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi? Is it allowed! Permitted/approved? If No, what action has been taken by MCD to demolish such illegal construction of the 20 feet gate? Kindly provide certified copies of noting in the file for the same.

18 Can any part of the construction of the residential building cover the rain water drainage and gutter cap on the road. If no, what actions are prescribed in the laws/ by laws/acts to be taken by MCD to stop/prevent this act?

19 Is MCD aware that the rain water drainage and gutter cap has been covered under the ramp of the back gate of the building at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. If yes, what action has been taken in this regard. Kindly provide certified copies of noting of the file in respect of the same. 20 What is the permissible wattage of the generator that can be installed in the residential area for electricity backup?

21 Is MCD aware that the generator installed at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is beyond the permissible limit of MCD in residential area. If yes what action has been taken to rectify this illegal action? Kindly provide certified copies of noting of the file in respect of the same. 22 Has any complaint been made against any flaws/inappropriate construction/ illegal or unapproved construction done at J-12/26 or at J-12/27 (which are addresses of a common building), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi since the last one year? If yes, kindly provide copies of all the complaints made to you. 23 What action has taken on these complaints? Please provide copies of the noting and Correspondence sheets to attend these complaints.

24 Has MCD received any complaint relating to the illegal construction and coverage of man holes (Gutter) of the sever lines and rain water drains at J-12/26 or at J-12/27 (which are addresses of a common building), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi?

25 What action has been taken on this complaint? Please provide certified copies of the noting and correspondence sheets to attend these complaints.

26 Is a straight through fare allowed inside a building from its main entry gate to the gate at the service lane i.e. is a straight passage allowed inside a building for vehicular flow from its main entry gate to the gate at the service lane in the residential area?

27 If yes to Ques 26, what is the permissible limit of the width of the passage!/through fare allowed inside a building from its main entry gate to the gate at the service lane in residential area? Kindly provide certified copies of the Acts! Laws/by laws/notifications of MCD or any other Govt. Body to support the same.

28 Is MCD aware that the straight through fare at the plot at J-12/26, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is more than the permissible limits. Is the width of the passage being approved in the architectural plan of the building?

Reply of PIO:

Not replied.

Grounds for First Appeal:

Non-receipt of the information from the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:

"The Appellant stated that the reply has not been furnished to him till date. The PlO is directed to ensure that the reply is furnished to the said RTI application within 15 days. Further he should also ensure that the reply is given in complete and detailed manner."

Grounds for Second Appeal:

PIO has not furnished the information even after the FAA's order.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Siddharath Sikri;

Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I; Mr. Ashok Gupta, AE(B);

The appellant states that he has received the information from the PIO only on 14/09/2010. The PIO states that the information was dispatched on 10/09/2010. The appellant states that he is not satisfied with the information. The PIO is directed to give a fresh reply to query-19 to the appellant.

The RTI application was filed on 25/01/2010 and the information should have been provided to the appellant before 25/02/2010. Instead of which the information was provided to the appellant on 14/09/2010. The PIO has given the chart showing that the RTI application was first held by Mr. Ashok Gutpa, AE from 08/02/2010 to 26/05/2010 for a period of 107 days. Mr. Ashok Gupta who is present states that the record has been manipulated and that he was not responsible for not providing the information. He alleges that the records have been manipulated to put the blame on him for the delay in providing the information. The Commission directs Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CVO, MCD to inquire into this and establish whether the documents are being manipulated. The CVO will setup and inquiry immediately and report to the Commission whether the documents have been manipulated to put the blame on Mr. Ashok Gupta, AE. If this true the report will mention the person responsible for this manipulation. The CVO is directed to give the report to the Commission before 25 October 2010.

The PIO has also identified that the order of the First Appellate Authority was sent to Mr. Vinay, JE on 24/06/2010 to provide the information. He states that Mr. Vinay was responsible for the further delay of 74 days until 06/09/2010.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to give a fresh reply to query-19 to the appellant before 05 October 2010.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CVO MCD is directed to give the report as directed above to the Commission before 25 October 2010.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Vinay, JE within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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 deemed 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.

Mr. Vinay, JE will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 October 2010 at 3.00pm 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 cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.

Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK) CC:

To, 1- Mr. Vinay, JE through Mr. V. R. Bansal PIO & SE;

2- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CVO MCD through Mr. V. R. Bansal PIO & SE;