Central Information Commission
Mr.Gurjeet Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 2 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000972/7955
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000972
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Gurjeet Singh
H-28 East Chander Nagar
New Delhi-110051
Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar
Public Information Officer & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Superintendent Engineer I
Zonal Office Building, 3rd
Floor Karkardooma, Shahdara
South Zone,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
RTI application filed on : 29/01/2010
PIO replied : 09/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 19/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/04/2010
Information sought:
i) F.A.R. permitted in a residential DDA colony in 1967.
ii) Permitted height of the building.
iii) Structural safety norms to be followed.
iv) Whether the old building needs to be demolished for sanction of new building plan. If yes, whether some part of the building can be kept undemolished.
v) Whether the height of the common boundary wall of the building should be 9 feet or 4.5 feet. In case of seepage or dampening laws protecting the owner of the adjacent building. Action taken against the owner of the building causing seepage.
vi) Safety provisions to be followed in case lift space is provided. Whether pillars should be constructed on the four corners of the lift space. Whether any additional safety norms have to be followed if the building shares a common boundary wall with an adjacent building.
Public Information Officer's (PIO) reply:
The sought information is available in the master plan 2021/BBl which can be bought from the open market.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The first appellate authority disposed the appeal.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No order passed by the FAA and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Gurjeet Singh;
Respondent: Mr. H. S. Singh, EE(B-I) on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar, PIO & SE;
The PIO has taken a correct position that Right to Information means providing the information based on records available. The Appellant is actually seeking clarification and interpretation of the building rules. Whereas it would be desirable that various public authorities interacting with citizens have their rules in a manner which can be easily understood by the citizens, RTI cannot provide this by itself. During the discussion it emerged that the appellant was seeking information about the FAR in case where the plot size is 104.5Sq.meters. The PIO has provided the information verbally that rule 4.4.3.(5)-(A-2) of MPD-2021 would apply. The PIO is directed to provide a photocopy of this to the appellant.
The RTI application had been filed on 29/01/2010 and the information provided was very simple stating that the bye-laws of MPD-2021 would apply. To provide this simple information it has taken nearly three month and information was supplied on 09/04/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The PIO is directed to provide a copy of the rule as mentioned above to the Appellant before 10 June 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. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 June 2010 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 02 June 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AG)