Central Information Commission
Gauri Shankar vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 14 February, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.CIC/EDMCDS/A/2017/131527
Shri Gauri Shankar ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO/E.E.-(M-III)/Shah-North,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through: Sh. Satish Deva, JE (B)
2. PIO/E.E.-(Bldg.-II)/ Shah-North,
EDMC ..... प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Through:-Sh. A K Yadav,
AE(M)-III, Shahdara North
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2019
Date of Decision : 13.02.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2017
PIO replied on : 07.04.2017
First Appeal filed on : 15.03.2017
First Appellate Order on : 28.03.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.05.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2017, seeking the following information inter alia about the Shop No. B-11, Jagatpuri, Mandoli Road, Delhi:
1) Copy of the complaint (with name and address of the Complainant) in the case of demolition of shutter and wall of above mentioned shop on 21.04.2016,
2) copy of the order vide which the demolition of shutter and wall of the aforesaid shop was carried out,
3) information as to how many shops on the same road where shop No. B-
11 is located which have extended their shops and houses ahead on the road,
4) whether any survey was conducted to ascertain the status of un- authorized extension of shop and houses in front of road, copy of survey report if any,
5) copy of order vide which demolition was carried out by Junior Engineer, EDMC on road which comes under PWD Upon non receipt of any response from PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 15.03.2017. Shri Arun Kumar (Engg.) Cum Superintending Engineer-II, Shahdara (N) Zone vide order dated 28.03.2017 directed both the PIOs viz. PIO/EE(B) - II and PIO/EE(M)-III to revisit the RTI application and provide information to the appellant within 15 days.
The PIO/Executive Engineer M-III, Shahdara North Zone vide letter dated 07.04.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant, enclosing the relevant annexures.
Still not satisfied with the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties were present during the hearing. The Appellant stated that the shutter and wall of his shop was demolished arbitrarily by a Junior Engineer from EDMC, without serving any notice. Hence he sought the aforesaid information through his RTI application, in response whereof he has received no information or reply so far from the public authority. Respondent is represented by Sh. Satish Deva, JE (B) and Sh. A K Yadav, AE(M)-III, Shahdara North. Sh. Yadav informed that all the information as available on records, had been duly provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.04.2017.
Appellant admitted that he had received the reply dated 07.04.2017 but the annexures mentioned therein had not been supplied to him. Respondent was prepared with copy of the annexures, as mentioned in the PIO's reply dated 07.04.2017 and furnished the same during the course of hearing. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the Appellant had filed a case with respect to the alleged illegal demolition of the shutters and wall of his shop. The said case had been disposed off by JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(Shahdara) - Smt. Anu Aggarwal vide order dated 17.07.2018, wherein it is noted that the counsel for Sh. Gauri Shankar had withdrawn the case stating that nothing survives in the case, since the shutter had been repaired.
Appellant has expressed reservation about the copy of complaint, furnished by the Respondent, on the ground that the incident he referred to was of 21.04.2016, while the copy of complaint furnished by the Respondent is of a later date viz. 20.05.2016 and therefore could not have been the basis of the demolition action.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing detailed averments of both the parties, the Commission notes that information as available on record had been provided by the respondent on 07.04.2017. At the Appellant's denial of having received the supporting annexures, copies of the annexures were also provided during the hearing.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that information as available on record has been duly provided to the Appellant. Therefore, no cause of action survives to adjudicate any further in this case. In so far as the averment of the Appellant with respect to correctness of the date of the complaint is concerned, it is clarified that this Commission is not a fact finding authority, and restricts its jurisdiction to the dissemination of information, as available in public records.
The instant appeal is thus disposed off with these observations.
Sd/-
Y. K. Sinha(वाई . के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रत Ram Parkash Grover Dy. Registrar 011-26180514 / राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर, उप-पंजीयक