Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Dutt Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000991, 001013, 001019, 001021, 001073, 001079, 001081, 001085, 001091,
001071/19073
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000991, 001013, 001019, 001021, 001073, 001079, 001081, 001085, 001091,
001071
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma
D-129, New Seelampur,
Delhi-1100
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mittal
PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi Shahdara North zone, Welcome, Keshav Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2011 PIO replied : 03/10/2011 First appeal filed on : ------------- First Appellate Authority order : 15/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 12/01/2011
The Appellant had sought information with respect to various properties listed in the RTI applications:
Sl. Information Sought
1. Provide the copy of notice which had been received from above mentioned plot owners at the time of sanctioning of building plan for construction and the documents stating that the building had been constructed according to the building sanctioned plan.
a) Certificate of JE in compliance of High Court directions in Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare Organization v. Union of India & ors
b) Building plan register and register for watching construction.
c) Inspection report which was conducted by JE(7 days), AE (15 days), EE(30 days).
d) Reviewed inspection reports of Sup. Engineer which was prepared in two months and Dy Commissioner in three months.
e) Copy of notice which had been received from the constructor before 7 days, for commencement of work
f) Fee receipt of Rs 15 that ensure construction work completed up to plinth level.
g) Inspection report of JE conducted ensuring that the construction up to the plinth level is as per sanctioned map.
h) Stacking Charge receipt.
2. If above mentioned documents is not on record then mention under which direction of law their maintenance is exempted. Provide with the name of the officers who have failed to discharge official duties and what action can be taken against them.
3. Mention the name of the errant MCD official assigned with the task of maintenance of the above mentioned documents.
4. Name of the MCD official with the knowledge of the above constructions and name of the official with the duty to stop unauthorized construction/contravention of the sanctioned plan.
5. What action had been taken on the E-mail dated 31st July sent by the Appellant informing about unauthorized Page 1 of 2 construction?
6. Inform when the MCD officials got to know about the above constructions and also the exact plot no if there are any other plots under construction.
7. Exact number of above mentioned references of plots. If the Plot had not been detected or the office does not deal with the confirmation of address then provide with the name of the office whose duty is to confirm the address and empowered to take action against unauthorized construction.
8. If map had been issued for construction of above mentioned plot the provide me with the copy of notice under section 6(1) of Delhi Master Plan 2020 or otherwise with the action taking report under section 377(4) of MCD act.
9. Provide with the name of the errant official if the action had not been taken under Section 377(4) of MCD act.
10. Provide with the name of the official empowered to take action against the plot constructors and what action is due against those officials.
11. Provide with the name of the JE (ph no) Architect( ph no and address) and AE who pertain to the above mentioned plots and the exact plot nos.
12. Whether the responsible MCD staff was satisfied under the assigned obligatory duty that the construction at the above mentioned building was being carried out as per the Hon'le High Court judgment
13. If the request for construction had not been received from the constructor then whether the procedure of detection of unauthorized construction and action initiated as per Hon'ble High Court judgment as per available law
14. If not followed provide the name of the officers responsible for non compliance with the High Court order
15. Whether the construction at above said plots was in the knowledge of DC, SE, FE, and AE.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. PIO had pretended that the information sought under point no 1(1) to 1(8) are not available on record.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The information has been provided to the Appellant. The reasons for appellant's dissatisfaction is not clear. The appeal is disposed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr.Anil Dutt Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kant Gupta, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. A. K. Mittal, PIO & SE-I;
The PIO has not given specific information to the Appellant. The PIO is directed to provide specific information as per the records. In case no record is maintained in certain cases this should be clearly stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the appellant before 15 June 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 23 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AD) Page 2 of 2