Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Rakhra vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 6 September, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/EDMCD/A/2017/184295
CIC/EMCDS/A/2017/184360
Shri Sanjeev Rakhra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Exe. Engineer (Building), ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
South East, EDMC, Karkardooma
Court, Delhi
Through: Sh. Shrimandir, EE(Bldg.)/PIO
Sh. D.P.Sharma, AE
Date of Hearing : 02.08.2019
Date of Decision : 06.09.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
184295 13.07.2017 04.09.2017 11.09.2017 29.09.2017
184360 13.07.2017 04.09.2017 11.09.2017 29.09.2017
CIC/EDMCD/A/2017/184295
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 13.07.2017 to seek the following information regarding Building No. 10/155 Geeta Colony, Delhi.
1. Whether permission was obtained for construction of the above said building? If yes, provide copy of thereof.
2. Whether permission was obtained for conducting commercial activities in the building? If yes, then provide its copy
3. Provide information pertaining to the illegal construction carried out in the building, in the form of photocopies.
4. Provide details of the owner of the building.
PIO/EE (Bldg.-I), Shahdara South Zone, vide letter dated 04.09.2017 forwarded the information to the Appellant as provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Page 1 of 3Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 11.09.2017. FAA vide order dated 29.09.2017 directed the PIO/EE(B-I) to provide specific/complete point wise available sought information to the appellant within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing. A submission dated 26.07.2019 is filed before the Commission by the Respondent.
Appellant submits that the property is not registered for mixed use and yet it is being used for commercial purposes. In response, the Respondent confirms that the property is registered only for residential purposes.
Decision:
After hearing the submissions of both the parties Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent/PIO/ Sh. Shrimandir, EE(Bldg.) to conduct an inspection of the Building No. 10/155 Geeta Colony, on the issues raised in the RTI application and submit a fresh report before the Commission with a copy marked to the Appellant. The above directions shall be complied with by the Respondent within 1 month from the date of issue of this order, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo motu.
CIC/EMCDS/A/2017/184360 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 13.07.2017, seeking an action taken report on his complaint dated 08.09.2015, filed against Sh. R K Singh, Junior Engineer.
PIO/EE (Bldg.-I), Shahdara South Zone, vide letter dated 04.09.2017, forwarded the information to the Appellant as provided by the concerned PIO.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 11.09.2017. FAA vide order dated 29.09.2017 directed the PIO/EE(B-I) to provide specific/complete point wise available sought information to the appellant within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
A submission dated 26.07.2019 is filed before the Commission by the Respondent.
Appellant is aggrieved over the ill-treatment at the hands of Sh. R.K. Singh. It is the submission of the Appellant that when he went to the office of Sh. R. K. Singh to inquire about the progress of one RTI application, Sh. R. K. Singh turned towards his senior Sh. Bhati, who was sitting next to him for suggestions and was told to check the status of the application in the system. Appellant Page 2 of 3 states that when it was found therein that the property, which was the subject matter of the RTI application, was not booked, Sh. Bhati suggested Sh. R. K. Singh to inspect the property and furnish a reply to the Appellant the next day. Appellant claims that on asking that at what time should he come to him next, Sh. R. K. Singh bristled with anger and threatened to file a complaint on false charges of criminal intimidation in Geeta Colony Police Station.
Decision:
Commission takes a strong view against the submission filed by the Respondent for the lack of correspondence with the RTI application in question. It appears that the Respondent has copied the reply from some other RTI application without due application of mind as it does not address the issue regarding the complaint made against Sh. R.K.Singh.
Perusal of the records reveal that the defence taken by the Respondent/PIO vide letter dated 04.09.207, for denying the information to the Appellant is baseless and futile. The information sought by the Appellant does not come within the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as claimed by the PIO. This clearly amounts to a wrong interpretation of the RTI Act. Moreover, the direction issued by the FAO has not been complied with.
In the light of the foregoing, Commission directs the PIO/ Sh. Shrimandri, EE(Bldg.) to issue a fresh reply the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order failing which penal action shall ensue against the concerned PIO.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 3 of 3