Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pankaj Tomar vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 19 September, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीयसच
                                                  ू नाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                     बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NDMCR/A/2021/149884-UM

Mr. Pankaj Tomar

                                                                            ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम



CPIO,
North Delhi Municipal
Corporation Building-I, Rohini
Zone, Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi-110085



                                                                         ....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing      :              06.09.2022
Date of Decision     :              19.09.2022

Date of RTI application                                                   06-07-2021
CPIO's response                                                           Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal                                                  28-09-2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                      Not on Record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                      22-11-2021

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:

Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Tomer present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Purshuttam Meena, A.E, present in the hearing.

The Appellant while reiterating the facts of the RTI application stated that he had sought action taken report on the two properties booked by the concerned authority under section 343/344 of DMC Act. He further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He submitted that the Respondent Authority had acted with total discrimination by taking action on the unauthorised construction in his property which was his home and booked it while not taking action against identical illicit construction in his immediate neighbourhood because it's owner has good network with police & department and had powerful connections. He said his was a case of blatant violation of the law by high handed and unjust officials who had booked his property while taking no action against similar violation in her neighbourhood despite having booked both the properties for unauthorised construction at the same time.

He added that due to the above said actions of the Respondent authority he has suffered huge economical loss and mentally agony and all avenues for seeking justice have been closed to him. He requested the Commission to intervene and save his and his hapless family from such blatant discrimination and high handedness. The Respondent submitted that an apt reply has been provided to the appellant as is available in the records. Nothing can be said as to why action has not been taken on the said matter, he added. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission observes that at the outset the case appears to be a serious case of miscarriage of justice as a result of discrimination by officials of the Respondent Authority and that there was weight in the submissions of the Appellant. Therefore, it directs the PIO to re-examine the matter and furnish a complete and precise information to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

Further the Commission observes that the evidence produced by the Appellant in support of his RTI appellation and the allegations he had made appear genuine and therefore advises the Dy. Commissioner, Keshavpuram Zone, to investigate the matter since it is a case of severe discrimination in implementing the law and resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

                                                                  (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
                                                     (Information Commissioner) (सच      ु )
                                                                                  ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)




(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 19.09.2022




Copy to
The Dy. Commissioner
Keshavpuram Zone,A-1 Block Keshavpuram,
zonal office, Near police station




                                                                                     Page 4 of 4