Central Information Commission
Shri.Azad Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000562/18365
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000562
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Azad Singh,
A-2/24, Khasra no. 36/6 (Ground Floor),
Rama Vihar Village,
Mohmmadpur Majri,
Delhi-110081.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Factory Licensing Department, Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 22/09/2011 PIO replied : 08/12/2011, 13/12/2011 First appeal filed on : 24/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 15/02/2012 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. I had sent a complaint dated 29/08/2011 The concerned complaint was marked to the concern area's relating to illegal factories. I request for J.E.(B) on 09/09/2011 vide diary no.823. Further action is a copy of the 'action taken report' on to be taken by the Factory Licensing Department of MCD. the complaint, taken by the authorities. According to the Factory Licensing Department (FLD), after inspection, prosecution actions are being taken against the illegal factories.
2. Which all factories have been sealed by As per record, no property mentioned in the complaint has the building authorities among those been sealed by the Building Department - I, Rohini Zone. building addresses which I had sent in FLD reply- No factory has been sealed by this department. the complaint? If those illegal factories Rest of the query does not pertain to this department. have not been sealed, then which officer is responsible for it? The name of such officer.
3. How many illegal factories have been As per available record, no property has been sealed either sealed in the year 2011? Who was the under u/c or misuse in Tri Nagar area by the Building officer responsible for this? The name Department - I/RZ in the year 2011. of such officer. FLD reply- As per reply given for Point 2.
4. The names of the Assistant Engineer List attached.
and the Junior Engineer posted in FLD reply- Information does not pertain to this Building Department-I and II of Rohini department. Zone. Where are they posted and also mention the names of the wards and areas under them. From when are they posted in the Building Department and the date of their posting?
Page 1 of 25. Give information regarding the name, In respect of Building Department area, A.E/J.E is post and contact numbers of the officers concerned for taking necessary action as per the provisions of Rohini Zone who are responsible for of the Law.
taking actions against illegal factories. FLD reply- As per reply given for point 4.
6. Which legal provisions are being This is an opinion based question which does not come violated and in which ways they are within the purview of the RTI Act. Further, no such type of being violated in relation to the illegal record is available with the Building Department-I/RZ. factories? Explain in detail. When was FLD reply- As per reply given for point 1. your department made known about such violations?
7. Detailed information relating to the As per the record, no action has been taken by the Building actions taken against such violations? Department-I/RZ.
FLD reply- As per sections 416/417 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, prosecution action has been taken.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The appellate authority observed that the information has already been given and the RTI application has been transferred to the Factory Licensing Department. The appellant was advised to contact the appellate authority in the Factory Licensing Department.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Azad Singh;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant states that as regards query-1 the action taken report has not been provided to him. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the action taken against the factories. The Appellant has given a list of 16 factories which he had alleged were running illegally. The PIO will indicate with respect each the action taken with documents showing the action taken. If no action has been taken against any of the factories this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 30 April 2012.
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 12 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 2 of 2