Central Information Commission
Mr. Brijesh Shukla vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 18 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000308/7195
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000308
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Brijesh Shukla
B-79 B, Street No.7
Shiv Vihar Phase -1
Karawal Nagar
Delhi- 110094.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Joint Assessor and Collector Municipal Corporation of Delhi Assessment and Collection Department Shahdara (North) Zone Delhi- 110032.
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2009 PIO replied : 25/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 11/12/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not received Second Appeal received on : 05/02/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 18/02/2010 Hearing Held on : 18/03/2010 Information Sought:
1. Information from M/S T.R. Sahwney Motors Pvt Ltd/ Maruti True Value at 33 and 34 Hari Ram Melaram Complex Wazirabad Road Delhi
2. Information from MCD regarding whether building 33 and 34 Hari Ram Melaram Complex Wazairabad Road Delhi operating in the name of M/S T.R. Sahwney Motors Pvt Ltd/ Maruti True Value is following laws and by laws of the MCD Building Laws
3. Whether the building/showroom is fire approved and if the existent basement is under the MCD laws.
4. "That whether the building the 33 and 34 Hari Ram Melaram Complex Wazirabad Road Delhi hazardous eyes of MCD laws"
5. Whether property tax has been paid by the owner of the building
6. How much property tax has been paid by the owner of the building
7. That in front of the showroom whether there is any MCD approved car parking, where vehicles are parking routinely or if the MCD has registered complaints regarding unauthorized car parking to the D.C.P. Traffic and how many such complaints (challans) have been lodged.
PIO's Reply:
In regard to point no. 5 and 6, as per assessment record there is no demand of the aforesaid property.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information has been provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not provided Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non supply of information by PIO in the appropriate time. No concerned action has been taken by appropriate authority Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Brijesh Shukla;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant has been given information only on queries 5 & 6. The PIO is directed to ensure that the Appellant is given information on query 2,3,4 & 7. If he needs the assistance of other PIO he will seek this and provide the information to the Appellant, since he has not transferred RTI application earlier.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on queries 2, 3, 4 & 7 to the Appellant before 10 April 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 April 2010. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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 18 March 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DR)