Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Anil Kumar Goyal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 10 June, 2013

                  Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
           Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

                   Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002162
 
Appellant /Complainant        :      Shri Anil Kumar Goyal, Delhi 
Public Authority              :      North Delhi Municipal 
Corporation, New Delhi 
                              (Sh. B.K. Shah, AE(B)

Date of Hearing               :     10 June  2013
 
Date of Decision              :     10  June  2013 
  
Facts:­ 

1. Appellant   submitted  RTI   application   dated   11   April   2012  before the CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi  seeking details in respect of alleged installation of tower on  House   no.   1944­45­46   and   49,   Mohalla   Imli   Bazar,   Sita   Ram  Delhi­6 and other related information through multiple points. 

2. Vide   CPIO   Order   dated   12   June   2012,   partial   point   wise  reply   was   provided   to   the   Appellant,     who   preferred   first  Appeal dated 26 June 2012 to the First Appellate Authority.

4. Vide   FAA   Order   dated   26   July   2012,   CPIO's   Order   was  upheld.

5. Being   aggrieved   and   not   being   satisfied   by   the   above  response   of   the   public   authority,   the   appellant   preferred  second appeal before the Commission.

6. Matter was heard today. both parties as above appeared in  person  and made submissions. Appellant  drew the attention  of  the Commission to response of the CPIO at point 2 of his order  dated 23 April 2012 as forwarded to him vide letter of 12 June     Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002162            2012   wherein   it   is   clearly   stated   by   the   executive   engineer  (B)  that   as  per  the  official   records   no  permission   had   been  granted for erection of mobile tower on house no. 1944 - 45 -  46   and   49    Mohalla   Imli,   Bazaar   Sitaram,   Delhi.   However   to  date the tower remains standing and no action had been taken  by   the   MCD   to   remove   this   unauthorised   tower   which  incidentally   is   also   erected   on   the   roof   of   an   authorised  construction thereby endangering the lives and property of the  residents of several nearby houses in the colony.

Decision notice

7. Commission has perused the facts on record and also heard  the averments of the parties. While accepting that information  as held by the public authority has already been provided to  the appellant, in our view, this matter cannot be allowed to  rest at this stage in the larger public interest. By providing  information to the appellant that mobile tower referred to in  the   RTI   application   is   in   fact   erected   without   proper  authorisation   (and   consequently   one   can   presume,   without  proper   prescribed   safety   checks),   MCD   authorities   have   left  the   matter   at   that.   Such   callousness   and   disregard   for  adherence   to   the   guidelines   prescribed   for   authorising   the  erection   of   mobile   telephone   tower   particularly   in   the  congested   residential   area   cannot   be   allowed   to   continue   by  the   public   authority   after   it   has   been   brought   to   their  knowledge   through   the   RTI   route   that   the   said   tower   is  unauthorised.   The   RTI   act   is   not   only   about   disclosure   of  information   but   the   object   of   the   Act   as   enshrined   in   its  Preamble   is  to   eradicate   corruption,   provide   good   governance  and   provide   transparency   in   the   actions   public   authorities.  Therefore   keeping   in   mind   the   larger   object  of   the   RTI   Act,  Commission directs the CPIO to provide the current status of     Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002162            this   tower   to   the   appellant  within   four  weeks   of   receipt   of  the order.

8. In   our   view,   this   is   a   fit   case   to   be   referred   to   the  Vigilance Department of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation  to enquire into the reasons for not taking action in respect  of the un - authorised mobile tower even after the concerned  Superintending   Engineer  and  executive   engineer   (B)   in   charge  of the city zone became aware of its existence. 

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 011­26105027 Copy to:­  
 1. Shril Anil Kumar Goyal 1885, Gali Lehasawa  Bazaar Sita Ram,  Delhi­110006
2. The CPIO Superintending Engineer/City Zone  North Delhi Municipal Corporation   City Zone, Zonal Office Bldg.,  MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali road  New Delhi­110002
3. The Appellate Authority Dy. Commissioner/City Zone North Delhi Municipal Corporation   City Zone, Zonal Office Bldg.,  MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali road  New Delhi­110002
4. The Vigilance Department  North Delhi Municipal Corporation City Zone, Zonal Office Bldg.,     Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002162            MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali road  New Delhi­110002              Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002162