Central Information Commission
Satya Narayan vs Mcd on 10 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/643167
Satya Narayan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan,
Old Hindu College Building,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2025
Date of Decision : 09.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.03.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 24.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
" नवेदन यह है क New F-25 शा ी नगर, द ल 110052 पतल गल के संबंध मे मने न न ल खत शकायत कर हुई है। िजसके बारे मे कुछ जानकार चाहता हूँ।
Page 1 of 5
शकायत+ का ,ववरण
14-12-2022 No. 1200 23-01-2023 No 1326
21-12-2022 No. 3695 07-02-2023 No 1393
28-12-2022 No. 3804 31-01-2023 No. 1350
15.02.2023 No. 1420 22-02-2023 No 4328
(1) उपरो0त शकायत+ के कौन कौन (JE) और (AE) building आए और शकायत वाले पते पर 5कनती बार गए।
(2) उपरो0त शकायत+ क (JE) और (AE) मे अभी तक क 0या काय8वाह कर है।
(3) 0या पा5क9ग खर दने वाले और misuse करने वाल+ के कागज दे खे गए और अगर दे खे गए है तो उन कागजो क : त ल,प मुझे भेजी जाए।
(4) 0या पा5क9ग क गोदाम या <रयाश मे इ तेमाल 5कया जा सकता है।
(5)0या (JE) और (AE) building ward-70 >वारा अभी तक 0या 0या क गई उसक जानकार भी मुझे भेजे िजनको मने समय समय पर शकायत+ के ,ववरणो सूचना के अ?धकार अ?ध नयम 2005 के :मा णत।"
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.05.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: He, along with Shri Deepak Sharma present in person. Respondent: Shri Hanumant Trivedi, AE (B) along with Shri Anil Kumar, ASO, MCD, City SP Zone, Kashmere Gate, Delhi present in person.
The appellant narrated the genesis of instant case being unauthorized use of parking/basement spaces in the form of godowns or for residential dwellings for which he made multiple complaints on the helpline numbers of Respondent Public Authority and through this RTI application sought action taken report on the same. However, no response has been furnished by the Page 2 of 5 PIO till date which led to this Second Appeal. He averred that a reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 03.01.2025 which is vague and evasive.
A written submission dated 03.01.2025 filed by EE(B)/PIO, MCD, City SP Zone, Kashmere Gate, Delhi is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"....Reference you subject mentioned RTI application; please find enclosed herewith the requisite information/reply as received from the concerned officials /APIO.
1. As per available record all the mentioned complaints which have been received in this office are marked to the concerned area JE through AE for necessary action If any. However, no action taken report regarding Property Number New F-25, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 is available in the records.
2. As per available record no action taken report of mentioned complaints is available in the records.
3. No such information is available in the records.
4. In this regard you may consult the MPD-2021 and UBBL-2016 book which is available in the open market. APIO(B)/CSPZ
5. Same as S. No. 1 above."
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding the reason for delayed reply, the respondent tendered his apology by stating that RTI application has been filed by the appellant in the form of general application which is registered in a general record register diary, and which could be the reason that it has been missed out. On further query from the Commission, respondent has failed to specify the name and designation of the then PIO and the present PIO.
Decision:
The Commission, at the outset, is unhappy with the fact that no reply has ever been provided by the concerned Respondent at the relevant time to the Appellant. No cogent explanation for such violation /delay has been tendered by the Respondent during the hearing in writing despite receipt of hearing notice in advance. Further, the reasons accorded by the Respondent is rather irksome to note as it was incumbent upon the Public Authority to proactively Page 3 of 5 maintain/access the RTI database and ensure that RTI Applications (online/offline) are dealt with in a time bound manner. Failure to dispose the RTI Application for the simple reason that it could not be disposed owing to its non-traceability/ oversight is reflective of the disregard for the RTI Act, the Respondent organization has.
In view of the above, the Commission directs Registry of this bench to issue show cause notice to then PIO, and the present PIO, Executive Engineer (B), MCD, City Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone, Delhi as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of RTI Act for not giving any timely response to the Appellant. The written explanation of the then PIO concerned and the present PIO along with supportive documents, if any, should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Shri Hanumant Trivedi, AE (B), MCD, City SP Zone, Delhi should ensure service of this order at the address for correspondence of the then PIO and the present PIO for timely compliance of the above-mentioned directions.
Now, as far as relief of information in concerned, the Commission advises the appellant to give a copy of his complaint under reference in writing to the Respondent within one week of the date of receipt of this order and the respondent, to intimate the broad outcome of the said complaints to the appellant, free of charge within three weeks, thereafter. A compliance report to this effect be uploaded with the Commission through the link given in the hearing notice.
Further, considering the gravity of issue flagged by the appellant regarding unauthorized usage of basement area, the Commission by virtue of the powers vested under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act, directs Superintendent Engineer of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, City SP Zone, Delhi to investigate this matter with a view to resolving the issue raised by the Appellant. In doing so, the Appellant be associated in the investigation, and he be allowed to present documents/photographs for the relevant period. If lapse is found in the matter, the Superintendent Engineer is to fix responsibility on delinquents, as may be found in the inquiry. Report of the inquiry along with supporting documents shall be shared with the appellant, free of cost, and also uploaded Page 4 of 5 on the link provided in the Commission's hearing notice within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
TEH FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)