Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Birinder Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 16 August, 2010

                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001903/8981
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001903

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant                           :      Mr. Birinder Singh
                                           Jt GM (PS), IFFCO,
                                           C-1, Saket Place,
                                           New Delhi.

Respondent                          :      Mr. N. K. Gupta

Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi Karol Bagh Zone, Nigam Bhawan, DB Gupta Road, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.

RTI application filed on            :      18/01/2010
PIO replied                         :      Not enclosed
First appeal filed on               :      15/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order     :      08/04/2010
Second Appeal received on           :      10/07/2010

Information Sought

The Appellant sought information regarding - • I. Whether owner of A-7i12 has filed any application of regularization of u/c. • II. If yes, kindly provide following:

i) Date of filing
ii) Copy of letter seeking regularization along with building plan
iii) Name of MCD official with whom this application is lying and for how much time
iv) Expected timeframe for rejecting such applications. V) Specific MCD regulations under which demolition can be delayed on the pretext of regularization once it is clearly established by MCD that construction is unauthorized and demolition orders has already been issued after serving adequate notices to the owner.

• In respect of complaint lodged by me against A-7 112, Naraina Vihar only limited demolition has been carried out by MCD. MCD has thereafter issued again notice to owner of above said property on 9~ Nov 2009 for demolition, however the unauthorized construction is yet to be demolished. Kindly provide following information in this regard: I. Copies of all correspondence and replies with steering committee in relation to above said property. • Whether MCD is authorized to entertain request for regularization of u/c once it is clearly established by MCD that construction is unauthorized and demolition orders has already been issued after serving adequate notices to the owner. • Specific MCD regulations under which execution of demolition orders can be delayed on the pretext of rejecting regularization application filed by the owner subsequent to issue of such orders.

• Expected or specified timeframe for rejecting such regularization applications. Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) No Reply was given.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Non-supply of information by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
/Shri K.K.Loomba on behalf of Shri Birender Singh, the appellant and the PIO/Superintending Engineer, Karol Bagh Zone attended the hearing.
The appellant has filed this appeal in respect of RTI applications bearing ID. No. 4021 dated 18.1. 2010. Appellant stated that he has not received the reply. APIO/EE BLDG. is directed to give reply to the appellant within 2 weeks from the issue of this order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Birinder Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Ali Jah Khan, AE on behalf of Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE; The appellant has filed four RTI applications on the same day and states that he has receive proper information about one RTI applicant for which the PIO has brought the relevant papers. It appears that some confusion has been created since the appellant had filed four different RTI applications on same day. The appellant is giving the copies of these to the respondent.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the three other RTI applications as per the records to the appellant before 10 September 2010. 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 16 August 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)