Central Information Commission
Mr. M.G. Aggarwal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 25 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001631/4551
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001631
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. M.G. Aggarwal
4222/1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Surinder Kumar
PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi Law Department (HQ), Old Hindu College Building, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
RTI application filed on : 17/04/2009
PIO replied : 24/04/2009 & 08/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 05/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 21/05/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 06/07/2009
Sr. No. Information sought PIO's reply
1. When the section 345A was Section 345A was inserted in the DMC
inserted in the DMC Act? Act, 1957 w.e.f. 10.12.1985.
2. What was the purpose of MCD No information is available with the Law
to insert Section 345A? Deptt. in this regard.
3. Whether any property can be The contents of Para (iii) are in the nature
sealed under section 345A on the of seeking opinion which is beyond the
allegations of unauthorized definition of 'information' as per the
constructions with out initiating relevant provisions of Right to action allegations of Information Act, 2005 and as such the unauthorized constructions with Law Deptt. is not bound to given the out initiating action U/S 343 and same.
344 of the DMC Act?
4. Whether any property can be Though contents of Para (iv) are in the sealed for indefinite period on nature of seeking opinion which is beyond the allegations of unauthorized the definition of 'information' as per the constructions? relevant provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 however, it is informed that sealing is a preventive measure to stop/remove the unauthorized construction/use in any property. The period of sealing depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
5. Is it not the responsibility of PIO (MCD), Law Department (HQ) officials of Building Department transferred this question to PIO, of the concerned zone that after Building Deptt. (HQ). sealing the property, the unauthorized construction should AE(Bldg.) vide letter dated 01/05/09 be demolished and property is responded:-
de-sealed?
The information sought vide this point is in the nature of seeing opinion which is beyond the definition of "information" as per RTI Act, 2005.
6. Whether any property can be PIO (MCD), Law Department (HQ) sealed after demolishing the transferred this question to PIO, unauthorized constructions? If Building Deptt. (HQ). yes reason thereof?
AE(Bldg.) vide letter dated 01/05/09 responded:-
The contents of this Para are in the nature of seeking opinion which is beyond the definition of information as per the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. Whether any building can be PIO (MCD), Law Department (HQ) demolished without issuing transferred this question to PIO, notice U/S 344 and giving an Building Deptt. (HQ). opportunity of hearing and thereafter issuing notice U/S AE(Bldg.) vide letter dated 01/05/09 343(i) of the DMC Act? responded:-
The contents of this Para are in the nature of seeking opinion which is beyond the definition of information as per the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for First Appeal:
1. PIO has misled the Appellant empowered under Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. PIO has refused to provide information to the query at serial NO. II which is against the provisions of RTI Act.
3. PIO has refused to provide information to the query at serial No. III malafidely, mentioning that "contents of Para (iii) are in the nature of seeking opinion which is beyond the definition of information as per the relevant provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 and as such the Law Deptt. is not bound to give the same".
It is stated that PIO has miserably failed to disclose under which provision of RTI Act, the information sought cannot be given. As a matter of fact, the PIO want to hide the misdeeds of the Building Department.
4. Information provided against query serial no. IV is not clear and misleading.
5. PIO has malafidely not replied/provided information to queries at serial V, VI & VII and transferred to PIO, Building Deptt. (HQ). though information sought relates to Law Department.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered "Since the PIO of Law Department has made statement that no information is available with respect to the application dated d17/04/2009, except what has been provided to the Appellant, no direction can be given to the PIO of the Law Department. The Appellant is given liberty to file appeal before the First Appellate Authority of the Engineering Department, i.e. Engineer-in-Chief, MCD, against the reply given by the Building Department (HQ) with respect to Para (v) to (vii)."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Surinder Kumar, PIO The Respondent contends that whatever information on record has been given and some of the queries are seeking interpretation or action in hypothetical situations which do not constitute information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided.
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 25 August 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AK)