Central Information Commission
Mr.Kuldeep Bharadwaj vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 11 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002997/16786
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002997
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kuldeep Bhardwaj
H.No. - 108, Gali No. 7
Lajwanti Garden
New Delhi - 110 046
Respondent : Mr. Naurag Singh
Public Information Officer & SE-I Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Office Of Superintending Engineer (WZ)-I Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden New Delhi-110027 RTI application filed on : 14/03/2011 PIO replied : 05/04/2011 First appeal filed on : 13/05/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 28/06/2011 Second Appeal received on : 24/10/2011 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. In 2009-10, a house was completely demolished and a 4 No permission was taken from the floor building WZ-109, Gali No. 7, Lajwanti Garden, New Department. Delhi - 46 constructed, is this construction is legal? Before reconstruction is there any map passed for that?
2. Is it legal in housing society that a house could be It does not come under the RTI Act. converted into Church?
3. Above cited house is now reconstructed into Church and Same as above. on the name of church the business activities are doing i.e. Conferences, Marriage parties and different competitions are organized with loudspeakers. The organizing of these such business activities are legal in housing society?
4. Is there any proceeding or action was taken by your office The property was booked under illegal in case if any of the above cited incidents are found illegal? construction, file no. B/UC/WZ/10/58 dated 19.4.2010. Appropriate actions are taken under D.M.C Act, if any illegal construction found in the area.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA ordered PIO to give the requested information to appellant.Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Kuldeep Bhardwaj;
Respondent: Mr. Kirti Pal, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Naurag Singh, Public Information Officer & SE-I;
The information sought in query 2 & 3 relates to the policy by which various activities have been conducted. The FAA had directed that the PIO should transfer the RTI application with respect to query 2 & 3 to the Town Planning department but this has not been done. The Commission directs PIO/SE-I West Zone to obtain the assistance of the PIO Town Planning Department and provide the information on query 2 & 3 to the Appellant before 30 January 2012.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/SE-I is directed to obtain the information from Town Planning Department and provide it to the Appellant with respect to query 2 & 3 before 30 January 2012.
The issue before the Commission is of not transferring the RTI Application by the PIO/SE-I as directed by the First Appellate Authority.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not transferring the RTI application as per the order of the FAA. This has resulted in obstructing furnishing of information to the appellant.
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.
The PIO/SE-I will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 13 February 2012 at 12.30pm 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. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.
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 11 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DE) Page 2 of 2