Central Information Commission
Mr.Darshan Lal Wadehra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001185/7811
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001185
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Darshan Lal Vadhera
181-Mukherji Park,
New Delhi-110018.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the Superintendent Engineer-I, School Building Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-
110027.
Public Information Officer Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the Superintendent Engineer-II, School Building Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-
110027.
RTI application filed on : 21/01/2010
PIO replied : 22/02/2010 SE-I WZ and SE-II WZ
First appeal filed on : 11/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 19/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 06/05/2010
Information Sought: Public Information Officer's (PIO)
reply:
i) Action taken by the MCD SE-II replied:
against BT Hospital, 182 Mukherji The Building Department has regularized
Park, New Delhi for having staircases the building as a residential building and with 25 cms tread instead of 30 cms the tread 10''. tread, as per the norms of the BBL.
ii) Action taken by MCD against the said SE-II replied:
hospital for having a corridor with width As per the regularization plan the width of 1.2 m instead of 1.5m, as per the norms of the corridor is 4 ft.
the BBL.
iii) Length and width of 182, Mukherji SE-II replied:
Park Information pertains to the Town Planning Department.
iv) Amount deposited by the said hospital SE-II replied:
at the time of regularization of The regularization charges amount to Rs. unauthorized construction. 90200/-, deposited vide G-8 No. 490029, dated 07/09/2005 by the owner.
v) Action taken regarding letter No. E.E. SE-I replied:
(M-WZ)-II/09-I/D/841, dated 02.02.2009. The concerned gate has been demolished.
The back of the area is under E.E. (M-WZ)
-III and only the front of Punjabi Market Road is being maintained by the office.
vi) Proposed R.O.W. from 182, Mukherji SE-I replied:
Nagar to Subhash Nagar crossing at N.G. The proposed R.O.W. is 45ft.As per the lay Road. out plan the R.O.W. is 60ft.
vii) Proposed R.O.W. from Khyala village SE-I replied:
to Mukherji Nagar. The matter is sub-judice. Future ROW cannot be ascertained at this time
viii) Present and proposed R.O.W. from SE-I replied:
182, Mukherji Nagar to DESU Office, Same as answer to query No.6. Mukherji Nagar.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIOs Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellate Authority made the following observations after considering the information provided:
Query No. 1 - Appellant is satisfied Query No. 2 - Copies of regularization file can be given Query No. 3 - L&B after seeing the building plan can be provided Query No. 4 - The copies of regularization file can be given Query No. 5 - after site inspection, reply be given Query No. 6 - appropriate reply Query No. 7 - revisit the application and give reply Query No. 8 - revisit the application and give reply The PIO(s) were directed to give the complete information within 15 days from the date of order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO(s) and non-compliance of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant had filed a RTI Application on 21/01/2010. He received a reply dated 26/02/2010 from the SE-I/PIO (WZ) and a reply dated 23/02/2010 from the SE-II (WZ). He was not satisfied with the reply that he received and he filed a First Appeal on 11/03/2010. A hearing was held by the First Appellate Authority on 15/04/2010 which was attended by the Appellant, SE-I/PIO (WZ) and SE-II/PIO (WZ). In his order dated 19/04/2010, the First Appellate Authority directed both the PIOs to take certain action provide information to the Appellant within 15 days. However, the Appellant did not receive any information till he filed the Second Appeal on 04/05/2010.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed to refuse disclosure by the PIOs. If any of the exemptions applied or if the information was not available with the PIOs, the First Appellate Authority would have made an observation to that effect. However, no such observation has been made. The Commission therefore directs SE-I/PIO (WZ) and SE- II/PIO (WZ) to comply with the order of the First Appellate Authority and provide the complete information to the Appellant before 15 June 2010.
The Appeal is allowed.
Complete information should be provided to the Appellant before 15 June 2010. The SE-I/PIO (WZ) and SE-II/PIO (WZ) are directed to submit proof of sending the information to the Appellant to the Commission before 21 June 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the SE-I/PIO (WZ) and SE- II/PIO (WZ) are guilty of not furnishing the complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7. They further refused to obey the orders of their superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that their actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed to submit written submissions, giving their reasons in writing to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them before 21 June 2010.
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 20 May 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AG)