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 0, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mrs.Vidya Vati Gulati vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 August, 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

                    Complaint: No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000167
 
Appellant /Complainant             :        Mrs. Vidya Vati Gulati, New 
Delhi 
Public Authority         :     South Delhi Municipal 
Corporation,Central Zone,Delhi
                         (Shri Vikas Gupta, AE(B), Sh. Rakesh 
Kumar, UDC)

Date of Hearing                    :      23 August  2013 

Date of Decision                   :      23 August  2013 
  
Facts:­ 

1. Smt.   V.   V.   Gulati,   Senior   Citizen,   submitted  RTI  application dated 25 April 2013 before the CPIO, South Delhi  Municipal Corporation, New Delhi seeking details regarding two  RTI   replies   dated   18/01/2011   and   12/13/2012   provided   by   the  Public Authority to the owner of the GF L­3, Kailash Colony,  New Delhi along with the inspection report dated 17/06/2010 as  mentioned thereto.

2. Vide   CPIO's   Order   dated   10   May   2013,   only   copy   of   the  inspection report was provided to the Complainant. 

3.   Being   aggrieved   and   not   being   satisfied   by   the   above  response   of   the   public   authority,   the   appellant   preferred  complaint before the Commission.

4. Matter was heard today. Both parties as above appeared in  person and made submissions.

Decision notice

5. After hearing both parties Commission directs as follows:

CPIO   is   directed   to   provide   attested   photo   copies   of  pages   165   -   172/N   from   file   no.   20/CC/B/CZ/10   dated   8  March   2010.   These   pages   contain   information   regarding      Complaint: No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000167              measurements of the appellant's property. CPIO will also  inform   the   appellant   regarding   the   date   on   which   the  measurements were taken and placed on record.

6. Appellant has submitted copy of letter no.D/27B/AE (Bldg) 

-   I/Central   Zone/2009   dated   21   May   2009   signed   by   the   AE  (Bldg) - I, Central zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in which it  is stated in respect of property no.   L - 3 (second floor) - Kailash colony, New Delhi that, "regularisation plan submitted  by you  does not tally with the construction actually existing  at   site  since   the   compoundable   area  existing   at  the  site   at  present   is   exceeding   the   compoundable   area   which   has   been  shown in the regularisation plan submitted and got regularised  by   you   under   the   self­assessment   scheme.   This   has   resulted  into   depositing   of   the   deficient   amount   on   account   of  regularisation   of   above   property   by   you.   You   are   therefore  required   to   deposit   and   amount   of   Rs   278,124/-   as   deficient  amount on account of regularisation charges." CPIO is directed  to   provide   the   list   of   areas   which   were   in   excess   of   the  compoundable area along with the specific  sections  under the  self­assessment scheme which allows for regularisation of the  areas exceeding the compoundable area.

7. Appellant   has   drawn   the   attention   of   the   Commission   to  letter no. 1476/EE (B)/Cent. Zone/2011, dated 18 January 2011  (   copy   placed   on   record)   addressed   to   the   husband   of   the  appellant   in   which   it   is   stated   that,   "during   inspection   on  both   the   occasions   it   was   found   that   there   are   no   non­ compoundable   deviations   in   the   existing   building,   which  existed was compoundable as per prevalent  norms contained  in  MPD - 2021. Compounding fee for the compoundable deviations in  P.   No.   L   -3,   Kailash   Colony,   New   Delhi   have   been   deposited  with the MCD and completion certificate has also been issued  for   the   building   at   the   reference."   Further,   appellant   has  drawn   the   attention   of   the   Commission   to   letter   no.   660/EE  (B)/RTI/Cent.Zone/2012   dated   12   July   2012   signed   by   the     AE  (B) -IV/CNZ in which it is stated that "it is informed that as  per   record,   this   office   has   not   compounded   any   non­ compoundable   deviations  in   building  no.L   -3,   Kailash   Colony,  New Delhi.

    Complaint: No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000167             

8. In   the   context   of   the   three   aforementioned   letters  referred   to   above,   Commission   directs   the   CPIO   to   ascertain  the   exact   position   regarding   whether   there   were   any   non­ compoundable deviations in building no. L -3, Kailash  Colony  New   Delhi   and   if   so   to   provide   the   details   thereof   to   the  appellant along with a copy of the rules under which the said  non­compoundable   deviations   were   regularised   after   charging  the prescribed fee.

9. Finally,   the   appellant   has   submitted   before   the  Commission, a copy of letter no. D/SE (C) - I/EE (B) - I/ APIO 

-   I/CNZ/2010/1101/RTI,   dated   14   March   2011   vide   which   the  husband of the appellant had been provided with a copy of the  completion certificate issued in respect of property no. L -3,  Kailash Colony, New Delhi along with enclosure. It is noted by  the   Commission   that   the   appellant   has   in   fact   not   been  provided   with   a   copy   of   the   completion   certificate   but   has  instead been provided with a copy of the Adhibog  Praman Patra  (Occupancy   Certificate)   which   are   in   fact   to   separate  documents.   Now   it   is   directed   that   the   CPIO  will   provide   to  the   appellant   and   attested   photocopy   of   the   Completion  Certificate issued in respect of the aforementioned property.

10. The   above   information   may   be   provided   to   the   appellant  within two weeks of receipt of the order. The appellant, who  is   a   senior   citizen   will   be   provided   this   information   by  registered   post.    Keeping   in   view   the   age   of   the   appellant,  CPIO   is   directed   to   ensure   that   specific   and   complete  information is furnished to her and any failure to implement  these directions will attract penalty.

   

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

(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 011­26105027 Copy to:­     Complaint: No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000167             
1. Mrs. Vidya Vati Gulati  House No. L­3, Kailash Colony  New Delhi­110048
2. The CPIO Executive Engineer(Bldg.I)/Central Zone South Delhi Municipal Corporation  Building Department/Central Zone  Zonal Office Building,  Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi­110024                  Complaint: No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000167