Central Information Commission
Zaffaryab Husssain vs Mcd on 19 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 &
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433
Zaffaryab Hussain .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Executive Engineer (Bldg) - 1,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan,
Old Hindu College Building,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006
PIO
Municipal Corporation of
Delhi O/o the Executive
Engineer (Bldg.I), City SP
Zone Nigam Bhawan, 4th
Floor, Old Hindu Collage,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025
Date of Decision : 06.02.2025
Date of SCN Hearing : 19.05.2026
Date of SCN Decision : 19.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is identical in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 &
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 1 of 10
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 10.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 05.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.11.2023, 29.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 12.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"It is stated that some people who are expert in raising illegal constructions without seeking any sanctioned plan from your office as per requirement of Section 333 of DMC Act have demolished the major portion of the property No. 1738. Bazar Lal Kuna. Delhi-110006 to ground level with intention to raise a five storey building besides a basement. These people to builder's mafia consisting of muscled and ill-reputed persons who are in a habit of extending threats of dire consequences. The construction intended to be raised by them are detrimental to the inserts of the applicant. Hence, the following information is being sought from your office:-
i) Whether the builder of the aforesaid property has got any plan sanctioned as per requirement u/s 333 of DMC Act from your office for raising a new construction or of construction of a Basement in the property bearing to 1738 Bazar Lal Muan, Delhi-110006,
ii) If a plan has been sanctioned, a copy of the same he provided to me at my costs and expenses.
iii) Name of the person who had applied for sanctioning of the plan, if any.
iv) Whether notice required for repairs/additions in property No. 1738, Bazar Lal Kuna, Delhi required u/s 334 of DMC Act has been given in your office? If so, a copy of the same be provided to me at my cost and expenses."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.02.2023 stating as under:
"1. As per record Plot No-1738, Ward No-VI, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006 has been got sanctioned vide I.D. No. 10072967 through online portal so you can obtained all desired information. on MCD website l.e. www.mcdonline.nic.in. 2 & 3. Same as Sl. No. 01 above.
4. No such information is available in the records of PIO."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.08.2023, held as under.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 2 of 10 "The case was heard on 08.08.2023. The appellant sought the information regarding P.No. 1738, Bazar Lal Quan, Delhi-110006 and stated that pointwise correct information not furnished by the PIO. PIO informed that the reply has been sent to the appellant vide No D/EE(B)/CSPZ/2023/1331 dated 10.02.2023. The PIO is hereby directed to provide the amended/pointwise reply as per the content of the RTI to the appellant within 10 days positively. The present appeal stands disposed off with aforesaid directions."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 03.02.2025:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri K. K. Sharma, Assistant Engineer and APIO and Shri Vivek, SO present in person.
1. The Commission has heard the matter and given the following observations/directions on 06.02.2025:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that information was provided to him by the Respondent till date.
The Commission further observes that the FAA vide its order dated 08.08.2023 had specifically given directions to the CPIO that "The PIO is hereby directed to provide the amended/pointwise reply as per the content of the RTI to the appellant within 10 days positively."
There is nothing on record to show that any reply was given to the Appellant on his RTI application after the directions given by the First Appellate Authority. It shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 3 of 10 In view of the above observations, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide reply/information sought in the above-mentioned RTI application to the Appellant as per the directions given by the FAA.
The aforesaid direction shall be complied with by the PIO within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Notwithstanding the above order, since the directions of the FAA has not been complied with by the CPIO within stipulated period, Shri Sanjeev Singh, Executive Engineer and PIO and then PIO Shri R P Gupta, Executive Engineer are directed to show-cause in writing as to why maximum penalty, including recommendation for disciplinary proceedings, should not be imposed on them for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and for not complying FAA directions within time given. The written submissions of the PIO shall be sent to the Commission within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order."
Relevant Facts emerged during Show-Cause proceedings held on 19.05.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta, the then PIO/Executive Engineer (B) (now retired); Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PIO/Executive Engineer (B); and Mohd. Asif, Assistant Engineer/APIO, City SP Zone, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, appeared in person.
2. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he has not received the desired information from the Respondent Authorities. However, he pleaded that there is substantial delay and hence, requested the Commission to take necessary action in the matter.
3. The Respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that the then PIO had filed detailed written submissions dated 18.02.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 4 of 10 on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"Please refer to the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Sh. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner, whereby the undersigned is directed to show cause in writing as to why maximum penalty, including recommendation for disciplinary action should not be imposed against the undersigned for not providing amended/point wise reply as per the content of the subject mentioned cases RTI to the appellant in compliance to the order dated 08.08.2023 of the Hon'ble CIC.
In this regards, it is submitted that this Department has already provided the amended/point wise reply to the appellant on 30.10.2023. The copy of the same is enclosed.
In view of above, it is requested to withdraw the Show cause notice against the undersigned as the directions of the Hon'ble CIC were followed and the amended/point wise reply to the appellant was provided on 30.10.2023."
4. The contents of the reply given by the PIO on 30.10.2023 are reproduced as under:
"As per record Plot no. -1738, Ward no. VI, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006 has been got sanctioned vide I. D. No. 10072967 through www.mcdonline.nic.in (Copy of sanction letter enclosed herewith). on website MCD i.e. However, Sanctioned Building plan and ownership documents are the private documents and intellectual property of the owner/architect and the same cannot be provided to the third party.
In this regard you are requested to submit the ownership documents in respect of the sought property so that the requisite information/plan may be provided."
5. Shri R.P. Gupta, the then EE (B)-I/ City SP Zone, MCD, Delhi, vide letter dated 28.02.2025 filed a written submission explaining facts of the case and contents of the same are reproduced as under:
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 5 of 10 "1. That vide order dated 06.02.2025 the Hon'ble Commission has observed that in spite of directions of FAA dated 08.08.2023 thereby directing the PIO to provide the amended/point wise reply as per the contents of the RTI to the appellant, but there is nothing on record to show that any such reply was given to the appellant. The Hon'ble Commission further directed the undersigned to show cause for not providing amended/point wise reply as per the content of the subject mentioned RTI cases to the appellant in compliance to the order dated 08.08.2023 of the First Appellate Authority.
2. That at the outset it is submitted that it appears that the appellant Sh.
Zaffaryab Hussain has not placed the true facts before your good self. It is submitted that had the true facts being placed before your good self, there would have been no occasion for the issuance of notice under reply.
3. That I have retired from Municipal Services after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2024. It is submitted that vide letter no. PA to SE/CSPZ/2018/D-353 dt. 24.02.2025, from the office of Superintending Engineer, City-SP Zone/FAA, I have got information about the above referred order and thus filing the present reply.
4. That in compliance of order dated 08.08.2023 passed by FAA, the PIO had already provided the amended/point wise reply to the appellant on 30.10.2023 vide No. D/EE(B)-I/CSPZ/2023/227 through speed post. A copy of the same is enclosed for ready reference.
That further compliance will be done by the present PIO of the department.
5. In view of above, it is submitted that the order of FAA has already been complied with and there is no mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act. It is therefore, requested to withdraw the Show cause notice against the undersigned."
6. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PIO/Executive Engineer (B), who appeared before the Commission and submitted that revised point-wise reply was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.04.2026. The reply given by the present PIO is reproduced as under:
1. "As per available record, The building plan has been sanctioned vide ID no. 10072967 dated 13.02.2020 in the name of Sh. Fida Hussain.
2. Copy of sanctioned building plan is enclosed.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 6 of 10
3. Same as S. no. 1 above.
4. No such information is available in the records."
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PIO/Executive Engineer (B), has filed a written submission in response to the show cause notice and contents of the same are reproduced as under:
1. that the present reply is being submitted in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide order dated 06.04.2026, whereby the undersigned has been called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should not be imposed.
2. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the undersigned has acted bona fide, diligently, and in good faith in discharge of statutory duties under the RTI Act. There has been neither any deliberate delay nor any intention whatsoever to withhold information from the appellant.
3. It is further submitted that the present proceedings are misconceived, and the observations leading to issuance of the show cause notice are not sustainable in light of the factual position on record. The RTI application dated 12.12.2022 was initially dealt with by the then PIO, Sh. R.P. Gupta, Executive Engineer (B), who has since retired from service. The answering deponent, Sh.
Sanjeev Singh, is the present PIO.
4. It is respectfully submitted that at no stage was there any refusal to provide information. On the contrary, an initial reply was furnished based on available records, thereafter, a revised reply was issued in compliance with the order of the First Appellate Authority, and further compliance is being effected in pursuance of the present directions of this Hon'ble Commission. This clearly demonstrates continuous engagement and absence of any intent to obstruct access to information.
5. It is submitted that pursuant to the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 08.08.2023, necessary action was duly undertaken and a point-wise reply, based on the records available, was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 30.10.2023.
6. The observation regarding non-compliance of the FAA's order is factually incorrect. The compliance was duly effected. However, the appellant CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 7 of 10 has neither acknowledged nor placed the said reply on record, thereby creating a misleading impression before this Hon'ble Commission.
7. It is submitted that vide no. D/EE (B)-I/RTI/CSPZ/30 dated 20.04.2026 a fresh reply has been provided to the appellant/Zaffaryab Hussain in compliance of FAA order No. SE/CSPZ/2023/D-128, Dated 08.08.2023, in appeal No. 57 dated 05.07.2023.
8. It is further submitted that the undersigned is a senior officer entrusted with significant statutory responsibilities relating to public safety, regulation of unauthorized construction, and enforcement of municipal laws. The undersigned has consistently discharged these duties with utmost diligence, integrity and in-strict adherence to the provisions of law, reflecting a bona fide and responsible approach in the execution of the official duties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that no case for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is made out, and the present show cause proceedings may kindly be dropped."
Decision in respect of Show-Cause proceedings:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes from the records and the written submissions filed by the Respondent officials that a revised/point-wise reply in compliance with the FAA's order had already been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 30.10.2023. The Respondents have further submitted that the said compliance could not be brought on record at the time of hearing held on 03.02.2025, which resulted in issuance of the show cause notices. The Commission also notes that the present PIO has subsequently furnished a fresh revised reply along with copy of sanctioned building plan to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.04.2026.
8. The Commission takes note of the explanation tendered by Shri R.P. Gupta, the then PIO/Executive Engineer (B), who has since retired from service, as well as Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, present PIO/Executive Engineer (B), and finds that though there has been delay and procedural lapse in effectively placing the compliance on record before the Commission, the same does not CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 8 of 10 appear to be deliberate or mala fide in nature so as to warrant penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission further observes that the Respondent authorities have eventually complied with the directions of the FAA as well as the Commission by furnishing revised replies and the relevant available information to the Appellant. In the absence of any cogent material indicating intentional obstruction or mala fide denial of information, the Commission is not inclined to impose penalty or recommend disciplinary proceedings against the concerned PIOs.
10. However, the Commission sternly cautions the concerned PIOs to remain more careful and vigilant in future while dealing with RTI matters and to ensure strict and timely compliance of the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and the Commission so that such lapses do not recur.
11. In view of the above, the show cause notices issued against Shri R.P. Gupta, the then PIO/Executive Engineer (B), and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, present PIO/Executive Engineer (B), are hereby dropped. As regard show cause for disciplinary proceedings, the Commission is of the view that after information has been furnished, apology tendered and stern caution issued above, the lapse does not remain serious enough to warrant recommending the same in the matter.
The matter stands dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 9 of 10 Copy To:
The FAA Supdt. Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Copy To:
The FAA Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o the Executive Engineer (Bldg.I), City SP Zone, Nigam Bhawan, 4th floor Old Hindu Collage, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Sanjeev Singh Executive Engineer (B-I)/PIO, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, CSP Zone, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 R P Gupta Executive Engineer (B-I)/then PIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, CSP Zone, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 R.P. GUPTA The Then PIO, Ε.Ε(B-I) CSP Zone A-141, UGF, Gitanjali Sadan Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095 CIC/MCDND/A/2023/144489 & CIC/MCDND/A/2023/146433 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)