Central Information Commission
Anil Datt Sharma vs Mcd on 8 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
CIC/YA/A/2015/001404 CIC/YA/A/2015/001472
CIC/YA/A/2015/001474 CIC/YA/A/2015/002862
CIC/YA/A/2015/002894 CIC/YA/A/2015/002926
CIC/YA/A/2016/000226 CIC/YA/A/2016/000227
CIC/YA/A/2016/001358 CIC/YA/A/2016/002180
CIC/YA/A/2016/000857 CIC/YA/A/2016/001617
CIC/YA/A/2016/001620 CIC/YA/A/2016/001840
CIC/YA/A/2016/002173 CIC/YA/A/2016/002177
CIC/YA/A/2016/002176 CIC/YA/A/2016/002178
CIC/YA/A/2016/002254 CIC/YA/A/2015/001031
CIC/YA/A/2015/001429 CIC/YA/A/2015/001129
CIC/YA/A/2015/001291 CIC/YA/A/2015/001427
CIC/YA/A/2015/002896 CIC/YA/A/2015/001428
CIC/YA/A/2015/002579 CIC/YA/A/2015/002897
CIC/YA/A/2015/001430 CIC/YA/A/2015/002585
CIC/YA/A/2015/001431 CIC/YA/A/2015/001432
CIC/YA/A/2015/001433 CIC/YA/A/2015/002576
CIC/YA/A/2015/002582 CIC/YA/A/2015/002895
CIC/YA/A/2015/002898 CIC/YA/A/2016/001618
CIC/YA/A/2016/001619 CIC/YA/A/2016/001625
CIC/DS/A/2013/000829 CIC/DS/A/2013/000874
CIC/DS/A/2013/000917 CIC/YA/A/2014/000995
CIC/DS/A/2013/001332 CIC/YA/A/2015/001463
CIC/YA/A/2015/001464 CIC/YA/A/2015/001465
CIC/YA/A/2015/001466 CIC/YA/A/2015/001183
CIC/YA/A/2015/001776 CIC/YA/C/2015/000241
CIC/YA/C/2015/000381 CIC/YA/C/2015/000211
CIC/YA/A/2015/001128 CIC/YA/A/2015/001584
CIC/YA/A/2015/001592 CIC/YA/A/2015/001940
CIC/YA/A/2015/001941 CIC/YA/A/2016/000300
CIC/YA/A/2016/000301 CIC/YA/A/2016/000302
CIC/YA/A/2016/001624 CIC/YA/A/2015/001775
CIC/YA/A/2015/001942 CIC/YA/A/2016/001842
CIC/DS/A/2012/002199 CIC/YA/A/2015/001292
CIC/YA/A/2015/001193 CIC/YA/A/2015/001123
CIC/YA/A/2015/001124 CIC/DS/A/2013/001423
CIC/YA/C/2015/001126 CIC/YA/A/2016/002174
1
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2017
Date of Decision : 05.05.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Anil Dutt Sharma,
Delhi
Respondent : CPIO, East Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Delhi
CPIO, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Delhi
CPIO, North Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Delhi
Through:
Shri V.K.Bhatia Mukhwant Sanjay
Singh Kumar
Shri Ajay Guta Deepak G.Ramesh
Khosla
Shri V.K.Agarwal R.K.Jain D.N.Shrma
Shri Jagdish Kumar Manish Sangeeta Jain
Gupta
Shri Babban Yadav V.N.Roy Nanak Chand
Shri Gajender Kumar Shri Ashish Sunil Kumar
Sharma
Shri Pramod Shukla R.K.Saxena P.Tigga
S.L.Tanwar Banwari Lal P.K.Jain
Gaje Singh Chauhan K.L.Kaushik Vipin Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Manish Kishan
Gupta Swaroop
Satish Kataria Ashok B.P.Bhardwaj
Kumar
Mohd Shakil Ajay Ashok Kumar
Gautam
R.K.Sharma
2
Facts emerging from the appeals:
East Delhi Municipal Corporation:
File No. Date of Date of CPIO Reply Date of 1st First Appellate
RTI Appeal Order (FAO)
CIC/YA/A/2015/001404 09/02/2014 No.-ID.No.-1182, 29/01/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:20/11/2014. 15/D-514,
Dtd.:05/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001472 06/11/2014 ID No.-1216, 29/01/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:26/11/2014. 15/D-516,
Dtd.:05/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001474 09/02/2014 ID No.-1189, 29/01/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:20/11/2014. 15/D-513,
Dtd.:05/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002862 09/02/2014 EE(B)-II/Sh-N/2014/D- 28/02/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
960, 15/D-572,
Dtd.:18/01/2015. Dtd.:24/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002894 14/12/2014 ID No.-428, 02/04/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:16/12/2014. 15/D-64,
Dtd.:08/05/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002926 11/12/2014 EE(B)-I/Sh-N/2015/D- 11/03/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
48, 15/D-701,
Dtd.: 03/02/2015. Dtd.:19/05/2015.
(Reply from Bldg-I,
but order from Bldg-
II).
CIC/YA/A/2016/000226 29/09/2015 EE(B)-II/Sh-N/2015/ 05/11/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/
D-2510, 15/D-478,
Dtd.:19/10/2015. Dtd.:22/12/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000227 27/05/2015 EE(B)-I/Sh-N/2015/ 17/08/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/
D-326, 15/D-358,
Dtd.:06/08/2015 Dtd.:23/10/2015.
&
EE(B)-II/Sh-N/2015/
D-2187,
Dtd.:07/08/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001358 01/07/2015 AC/RTI/Sh-N/2015/ 22/02/2016 No.-AC/Sh-N/RTI/
D-886, 16/D-2835,
Dtd.:08/02/2016. Dtd.:14/03/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002180 13/11/2015 ID No.-2598, 14/03/2016 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:10/03/2016. 16/D-1101,
Dtd.:09/05/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000857 01/11/2013 No.-ID-421, 12/02/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:16/12/2014. 15/D-857,
Dtd.:20/03/2015.
3
CIC/YA/A/2016/001617 17/07/2015 EE(B)-I/Sh-N/2015/ 04/01/2016 SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/2016/
D-646, D-543,
Dtd.:28/12/2015. Dtd.:25/01/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001620 17/07/2015 EE(B)-II/Sh-N/2015/ 14/03/2016 SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/2016/
D-2777, D-1066,
Dtd.:23/12/2015. Dtd.:14/03/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001840 21/10/2015 AC/RTI/Sh-N/2015/ 10/01/2016 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
D-886, 16/D-1047,
Dtd.:10/01/2016. Dtd.:25/02/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002173 21/10/2015 ID No.-492, 11/01/2016 No.-SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:06/01/2016. 16/D-602/B,
Dtd.:24/02/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002177 03/09/2015 ID No.-2344, 05/11/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:20/10/2015. 16/D-1046,
Dtd.:25/02/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002176 21/11/2015 ID No.-2610, 03/03/2016 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:23/01/2016. 16/D-1044,
Dtd.:25/02/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002178 17/07/2015 ID No.-2604, 03/03/2016 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:09/02/2016. 16/D-1103,
Dtd.:09/05/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002254 16/11/2015 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-N/ 14/02/2016 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
2015/D-2917, 16/D-1099,
Dtd.:12/01/2016. Dtd.:09/05/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001031 01/11/2013 No.-ID.No.-1017, 28/02/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-S/2015/
Dtd.:29/12/2014. D-146,
Dtd.:11/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001429 01/11/2013 No.-598/ EE(B)-II/Sh- 02/03/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-S/2015/
S, 1802,
Dtd.:22/01/2015. Dtd.:13/03/2015
(replied by Bldg-II and
order passed by Bldg-I)
CIC/YA/A/2015/001129 16/11/2014 No.-ID.No.-973/EE(B)- 11/02/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-S/2015/
I/Sh-S, 1578,
Dtd.:12/12/2014. Dtd.:23/01/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001291 11/12/2014 No.-ID.No.-1016/ 02/03/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-S/2015/
EE(B)-I/Sh-S, D-146,
Dtd.:22/01/2015. Dtd.:11/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001427 09/02/2014 No.-153/ EE(B)-I/Sh-S, 08/04/2015 No.-SE-I/Sh-S/2015/
Dtd.:09/02/2015. 65,
Dtd.:13/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002896 22/01/2015 EE(B)-I/Sh-S/2015/ 20/04/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/103,
178, Dtd.:24/04/2015.
Dtd.:13/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001428 22/01/2015 No.-77/ EE(B)-II/Sh-S, 20/04/2015 No.-SE-II/Sh-S/2015/
Dtd.:18/02/2015. D-01,
Dtd.:06/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002579 16/12/2015 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-S/ 28/02/2015 SE-II/Sh-S/2015/
2015/82, D-05,
4
Dtd.:10/03/2015. Dtd.:07/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002897 22/01/2015 EE(B)-I/Sh-S/2015/ 20/04/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/99,
179, Dtd.:24/04/2015.
Dtd.:13/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001430 16/11/2014 No.-PIO/ EE(B)-I/Sh-S/ 28/02/2015 No order passed.
2015/103,
Dtd.:17/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002585 16/11/2014 ID. No.-1019, 18/02/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/1658,
Dtd.:03/03/2015. Dtd.:20/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001431 22/01/2015 No.-EE(B)-I/Sh-S/ 20/04/2015 No order passed.
2015/78,
Dtd.:18/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001432 22/01/2015 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-S/ 20/04/2015 SE-II/Sh-S/2015/D-09,
2015/81, Dtd.:22/04/2015.
Dtd.:11/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001433 16/11/2014 No.-EE(B)-I/Sh-S/ 08/04/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/66,
2015/D-154, Dtd.:13/04/2015.
Dtd.:20/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002576 16/11/2014 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-S/ 10/03/2015 SE-II/Sh-S/2015/
2014/599, D-155,
Dtd.:30/12/2014. Dtd.:04/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002582 N.A. No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-S/ 20/04/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/102,
2015/80, Dtd.:24/04/2015.
Dtd.:03/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002895 22/01/2015 EE(B)-I/Sh-S/2015/ 20/04/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/100,
175, Dtd.:24/04/2015.
Dtd.:13/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002898 14/12/2014 EE(B)-I/Sh-S/2014/ 20/04/2015 SE-I/Sh-S/2015/104,
110, Dtd.:24/04/2015.
Dtd.:16/02/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001618 21/10/2015 EE(B)-II/Sh-S/2015/ 03/01/2016 SE-II/Sh-S/2016/
ID-810/D-1613, D-121,
Dtd.:29/12/2015. Dtd.:22/01/2016.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001619 21/10/2015 EE(B)-I/Sh-S/2015/ ID- 03/01/2016 SE-I/Sh-S/2016/869,
989/D-1049, Dtd.:11/02/2016.
Dtd.:29/12/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001625 09/01/2016 PIO/EE(B)/HQ/EDMC/ 22/02/2016 SE(B)/HQ/EDMC/
2015-16/D-191, 2015-16/D-220,
Dtd.:22/02/2016. Dtd.:31/03/2016.
CIC/DS/A/2013/000829 08/10/2012 No.-EE(B)-I/Sh-N/ 14/01/2013 No.-SE-I/Sh-N/RTI/
2012/D-676, 12/D-852,
Dtd.:05/12/2012. Dtd.:24/01/2013.
CIC/DS/A/2013/000874 14/12/2012 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-N/ 14/03/2013 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
2013/D-627, 13/D-415,
Dtd.:31/01/2013. Dtd.:10/04/2013.
CIC/DS/A/2013/000917 14/12/2012 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-N/ 14/03/2013 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
2013/D-625, 13/D-419,
Dtd.:31/01/2013. Dtd.:10/04/2013.
5
CIC/YA/A/2014/000995 14/12/2012 No.-EE(B)-II/Sh-N/ 02/02/2014 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
2013/D-2239, 14/D-975,
Dtd.:23/12/2013. Dtd.:17/02/2014.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001332 13/08/2012 RTI Cell No.-80392, 19/03/2013 No.-SE-II/Sh-N/RTI/
Dtd.:03/12/2012. 13/D-422,
Dtd.:10/04/2013.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001463 22/01/2015 PIO/ADOV/EDMC/165 24/09/2015 FAA/DOV/EDMC/VI
/2015/ED-1840, G./2013/ED-109,
Dtd.:23/02/2015. Dtd.:21/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001464 22/01/2015 PIO/ADOV/VIG./EDM 08/03/2015 FAA/DOV/EDMC/
C/164/2015/ED-1810, VIG./2015/ED-111,
Dtd.:16/02/2015. Dtd.:21/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001465 22/01/2015 PIO/ADOV/VIG./EDM 24/03/2015 FAA/DOV/EDMC/
C/170/2015/ED-1817, VIG./2015/ED-112,
Dtd.:18/07/2015. Dtd.:21/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001466 22/01/2015 PIO/ADO/VIG./EDMC 24/03/2015 FAA/DOV/EDMC/
/167/2015/ED-1815, VIG./2015/ED-110,
Dtd.:18/02/2015. Dtd.:21/04/2015.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation:
File No. Date of Date of CPIO Reply Date of 1st First Appellate
RTI Appeal Order (FAO)
CIC/YA/A/2015/001183 22/01/2015 ID No.-1579-II, 10/03/2015 SE-II/SZ/2015-16/
Dtd.:18/02/2015. D-14,
Dtd.:10/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001776 22/01/2015 ID No.-1622-II, 08/04/2015 No order passed.
Dtd.:02/03/2015.
CIC/YA/C/2015/000241 14/11/2014 ID No.-1503, 18/02/2015 SE-II/SZ/2014-15/
Dtd.:15/01/2015. D-776,
Dtd.:13/02/2015.
CIC/YA/C/2015/000381 22/01/2015 ID No.-1538, 08/04/2015 SE-I/SZ/RTI/Appeal/
Dtd.:25/02/2015. Misc/2015-16/D-01,
Dtd.:06/04/2015.
CIC/YA/C/2015/000211 11/12/2014 Multiple replies. Did not file No any order passed.
FA
CIC/YA/A/2015/001128 11/12/2014 No.-D/EE(B)- 02/02/2015 No.:D/SE(C)-I/CNZ/
I/CNZ/RTI/2014/1400, 2014/759,
Dtd.:31/12/2014. Dtd.:29/01/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001584 22/01/2015 PIO/Vig./SDMC/732/ 30/04/2015. PIO/ADOV/SDMC/
2015/3020, 2015/63,
Dtd.:23/03/2015. Dtd.:29/05/2015.
6
CIC/YA/A/2015/001592 22/01/2015 PIO/Vig./SDMC/732/ 30/04/2015. PIO/ADOV/SDMC/
2015/3020, 2015/63,
Dtd.:23/03/2015. Dtd.:29/05/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001940 01/11/2013 No.-EE(B)/NGZ/15/ 18/02/2015 No.-SE/NGZ/2015-16/
D-36, 37,
Dtd.:08/04/2015. Dtd.:24/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001124 01/11/2013 21/01/2015 02/03/2015 18/03/2015
CIC/YA/A/2015/001941 N.A. No.-EE(B)/NGZ/15/ 14/04/2015 No.-SE/NGZ/2015-16/
D-762, 28,
Dtd.:24/12/2015. Dtd.:13/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000300 20/07/2015 No.-EE(B)/NGZ/15/ 07/09/2015 No order passed.
D-332,
Dtd.:19/08/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000301 27/05/2015 ID. No.-190/RTI/EE 07/08/2015 No.-SE/NGZ/2015-16/
(B)/ NGZ/15, 163,
Dtd.:02/07/2015. Dtd.:11/09/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000302 27/05/2015 ID. No.-175/RTI/EE 07/08/2015 No.-SE/NGZ/2015-16/
(B)/ NGZ/15, 161,
Dtd.:29/06/2015. Dtd.:11/09/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001624 21/10/2015 EE (B)/ NGZ/2015/ 11/01/2016 No.-SE/NGZ/2015-16/
D-463, 229,
Dtd.:30/12/2015. Dtd.:25/01/2016.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation:
File No. Date of Date of CPIO Reply Date of 1st First Appellate
RTI Appeal Order (FAO)
CIC/YA/A/2015/001775 01/11/2013 No.:1042/RTI/EE(B)/ 02/03/2015 SE/KBZ/FAA/RTI/
KBZ, Order/Appeal/2014/
Dtd.:27/01/2015. 809/1189,
Dtd.:09/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001942 04/12/2014 No.-1178/RTI/EE(B)/ 24/03/2015 SE/KBZ/FAA/RTI/
KBZ, Order/Appeal/2014/
DTd.:18/02/2015. 803/1190,
Dtd.:09/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001842 17/07/2015 ID No.-874, 16/02/2016 No.:SE/CZ/2016/
Dtd.:01/01/2016. D-41,
Dtd.:26/04/2016.
CIC/DS/A/2012/002199 04/05/2012 No.-981/PA/SE/CLZ/ 24/06/2012 No.-1506/RTI/DC
2011, [CLZ]/2012/121,
Dtd.:15/06/2012. Dtd.:23/07/2012.
7
CIC/YA/A/2015/001292 14/11/2014 D-453/RTI/AC/SPZ, 07/02/2015 D-127/DC/SPZ/2015,
Dtd.:01/01/2015. Dtd.:04/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001193 01/11/2013 No.1795/EE(B)/SPZ/ 18/03/2015 D-07/SE/FAA/SPZ/
2015, 2015,
Dtd.:19/02/2015. Dtd.:01/04/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001123 01/11/2013 No.-ID.No.-683, 18/02/2015 FAAO-313/770/SE-II/
Dtd.:28/01/2015. CLZ,
Dtd.:20/03/2015.
CIC/YA/A/2015/001124 01/11/2013 No.-ID.No.-556, 02/03/2015 FAAO-230/836/SE-I/
Dtd.:22/01/2015. CLZ,
Dtd.:18/03/2015.
CIC/DS/A/2013/001423 18/02/2013. I.D.No.-44 & 45, Did not file No order passed.
I.D.No.- Dtd.:12/04/2013 FA
2/B/8. &
& I.D.No.-808/RTI/
18/02/2013. EE(B)/NGZ/13,
I.D.No.- Dtd.:08/04/2013
2/B/1 &
& I.D.No.-1292,
18/02/2013. Dtd.:18/03/2013
I.D.No.- &
2/B/1 No.-276/EE(B)/
& CLZ/2013,
18/02/2013. Dtd.:08/05/2013
I.D.No.- &
2/B/2 No-3234/EE(B)/
& RTI/CentZ/13,
08/10/2012. Dtd.:01/04/2013.
I.D.No.-
1/B/11
&
18/09/2012.
I.D.No.-
1/9/4.
CIC/YA/A/2016/002174 17/07/2015 Dtd.:21/01/2016. 15/02/2016 No.:SE/CZ/2016/
D-41,
Dtd.:26/04/2016.
ORDER
1. The present batch of appeals as listed above is preferred by the same appellant. Since the issues involved in the present appeals are identical in nature, the Commission proposes to adjudicate upon them together through the present order. Having received the consent of all parties involved to hear the appeals together, the Commission has heard both the appellant and as well as respondent CPIOs at length.
82. The issue of menace of unauthorized construction as prevailing in the national capital is at the core herein and the present appeals, in one way or the other, are predicated upon RTI applications which while seeking vast amount of information, virtually attempt to audit the work efficiency of the civil bodies in curbing the aforesaid menace as well as their other regulatory functions.
3. These batches of appeals are preferred by Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma, who appears to be on a mission to conduct a performance audit of the trifurcated Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The appellant has endeavoured to conduct such a performance audit of EDMC, SDMC and NDMC. He has filed hundreds of RTI applications with the aforesaid public authorities wherefrom the present 76 second appeals emanate. Each one of them while seeking vast amount of information aims at evaluation of the performance of public authority in checking the menace of unauthorized construction.
4. Some of the queries raised by the appellant, Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma are reproduced hereinafter, in order to represent their nature and content:
"Please provide me information about the incumbent Junior Engineers of Civil Line Zone since his tenure of Zone, Building Department. Please inform me and provide me documents:
A. Copies of complaints received by the MCD against the said JE and complaints of those properties falls under his jurisdiction as well as present status of Buildings. B. Police reporting of such constructions which falls under his jurisdiction.
C. Inspections reports of those properties, conducted by the said JE.
D. Addresses of properties booked by said JE and its final inspection reports.
E. List of unauthorized construction booked and demolished by the JE and the construction stage of 9 booking and demolition during his appointment in Shahdara North Zone.
F. Addresses of those properties where JE had initiated action of demolition and prevented further construction. G. Provide me total number of inspections conducted, reported furnished and deviation in sanctioned plan recorded by the JE.
1. Please provide me copy of all documents of unauthorized construction and of construction in contravention of sanctioned plan prepared by JE in compliance of order No. D/55/SE(B) HQ/97/UDC-II, circular No.D/167/EE (B) HQ/99 dated 22.03.99, office order No.D/158/Addl.Cm.(E)/2001 dated 4th July, 2001 office orders and copy of review and monitoring record of incumbent SE and DC with the said JE.
2. Personal responsibilities in terms of circular No.47/Addl.CM.ENGG/2010 dated 24/5/10 of JE and of SE's /and Deputy Commissioner's who were/are incumbent alongwith the said JE, for delinquency of those unauthorized construction either booked, action on police reporting pending, violation of terms of sanctioned map and which are constructed but not authorized under DMC Act and if not responsible then inform me under which quasi judicial decision/function (section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act) personal responsibilities has not been fixed or inform me such directions overruled the said circular.
3. Copy of inspection reports which are conducted by JS(7 days) 10
4. Copy of review reports of Suptdg. Engineer which was prepared in two months and by Deputy Commissioner in three months.
5. The dates when Superintending Engineer once in two months called for a meeting of the staff of building department to check the record of said JE whether the record is being maintained properly and the JE and AE is following instructions issued.
6. The date when SE and DC carried out a random check once in two months and three months to ensure that the demolition actions by the said JE are being taken as per the priority fixed.
7. Action prescribed as per MCD control and appeal regulations 1959, against the JE, SE and Deputy Commissioner for their delinquency of above said mandatory and procedural information is not on record.
8. Provide me all record maintained under section 4 of RTI Act in respect of above said.
5. Another RTI application, which travelled across every nook & corner of EDMC, SDMC & North DMC reads as:
Please provide me the following information:
1. Please inform me the name, office address, room No., phone No. of RTI Monitoring Officer of all three Municipal corporation and its zones and its departments including Building Departments and name of the supervisory officer over it.
2. Inform me total number of public authorities with identified name, functioning under the EDMC,NDMC and SDMC.11
3. Inform me name of public authority which is the custodian of information of Commissioner, Addl commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
4. Inform the name of public authority which is the custodian of information of all senior officers to the 1st Appellate Authorities.
5. Please provide me copies of record which pertains to recommendation of administrative reforms Commission for implementation of 12th report of 2nd ARC -Citizen Centric Administration.
6. Please provide me entire record available in the corporation in order to copy of letter No.F.4/14/2009-
AR/Main/Pt.Fille/13626-785/c dated 29.12.2010 received from Administrative Report Department. And also provide me document/information of action taken report of accepted/rejected paras of the report and its reasons. (copy of letter enclosed.) The above indicates that the appellant has endeavoured to elicit:
I. Statistical data relating to every aspect of unauthorized construction and copies of all possible documents w.r.t. reporting from each source, each and every noting on file regarding each such construction and by each and every officer II. Every possible information about certain officers of the civic bodies, which virtually amounts to their performance audit and detection of their shortfalls in achieving their annual targets or goals III. Every possible information pertaining to certain circulars & memoranda of respondent civic authority and every possible noting 12 on action taken on their implementation and all possible related documents.
IV. Information relating to processing of complaints by respondent civic bodies, their total number and details regarding processing of each file.
6. Besides seeking such vast information from a particular zone, the appellant extends the scope of this staggering range still further to all the three Municipal corporations. While the appellant resides in Seelampur area, his queries regarding unauthorized constructions span across length and breadth of Delhi. The breakup of appeals preferred by Mr. Sharma is follows:
Sr. Public Authority No of Appeals
No.
1 East Delhi Municipal Corporation 49
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation 15
3. North Delhi Municipal Corporation 08
Total 74
All the RTI applications were replied to by the respective CPIO. However, the appellant has preferred appeals in all the cases being dissatisfied with the information furnished. The Commission shall take up the appeals zone wise.
East Delhi Municipal Corporation:
7. The appellant has sought information with respect to the Building I & II departments along with the office of Commissioner & Vigilance Hq, which are now taken up separately. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001404 the appellant sought multifaceted information with respect to some officers regarding the instances of unauthorized construction in their respective area along with action taken thereon. For the purposes of the indicating 13 the nature of queries and corresponding reply by the CPIO, the information sought vide RTI dated 09.02.2014 is reproduced hereinafter:
Please provide me information under RTI act, 2005 Please inform me figure of total number of properties which have been constructed in the tenure of present Superintending Engineer (B) (Figures are required in form of hard copy, the appellant is unable to access website of corporation). The appellant is ready to pay for its cost.
Name of Superintending Engineers (B) and date of their appointment Inform the following on account of unauthorized construction (between the period of their appointment in the Zone and up to 30th October, 2014 of present Superintending Engineers (b).
- Total number of property sealed on account of
unauthorized construction
- Total number of properties booked
- Total numbers of properties demolished partly and fully
- Total number of notice under section 344 DMC Act
- Total number of properties inspected by the engineers on account of unauthorized construction reporting.
- Total numbers of police reporting received
- Out of turn demolition order passed
- Responsibility of unauthorized construction laid down (reference office circular No.47/ADDL.C.M.ENGG/2010 dated 24/5/10.
- Addresses of unauthorized properties of which
responsibilities required to be fix against the
Superintending Engineers (B).
- Name of the Superintending Engineers (B) are covered in the ambit of office circular 14 No.47/ADDL/C.M.ENGG/2010 dated 24/5/10 subject to unauthorized construction (booked, sealed, demolished and other action) Name of offices who are presently have power disciplinary authority against the superintending Engineers (B) who comes in the ambit of office circular No. No.47/ADDL/C.M.ENGG/2010 dated 24/5/10 The CPIO furnished the following reply:
1-56 These points are not available in the application 57 No such information is available on record, however, details of the properties detected for unauthorized construction are maintained in the missal band register, photocopy of the same ca n be had on payment of Rs.2/- per page within 30 days at any working day between 2.00 pm to 4.00 pm 58 Shri Rajinder Prasad is the SE of Shahdara (North) Zone and his date of appointment is ....
59 XXI - As point No. 57 above
XXII - -do-
XXIII -the details of properties demolished partly or fully are maintained in demolition action taken register copy of which can be obtained on payment of Rs. 2 per page within 30 days at any working day between 2.00 pm to 4.00 pm XXIV As per point No. 57 XXV -do-
XXVI Number of police complaint received are maintained in dairy Dispatch register, photocopy of the same can be had 15 on payment of Rs.2/- per page within 30 days at any working day between 2.00 pm to 4.00 pm XXVII No such information is available on record XXVIII No information desired XXIX information sought is based on presumption and does not come under the purview of Information XXX Presently Shri Rajendra Prasad is Supdt. Engineer Being dissatisfied with the information received, the appellant preferred first appeal whereupon the FAA directed the PIO to furnish information on actual payment of prescribed charges. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAO, the appellant approached the Commission with a prayer for award of compensation. However, the in the memorandum of second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant had not mentioned any specific details of any detriment suffered on account of denial of information which would warrant award of compensation.
Decision: [CIC/YA/A/2015/001404]: The present RTI application is aimed to extract every possible information from the public authority regarding all Superintending Engineers and is akin to conducting a performance audit. The queries solicit voluminous information and each one of them tends to dig out metadata. In the appeal, the appellant has diverted from original RTI queries and sought information about one more officer of the rank of Executive Engineer. Perhaps, due to large no. of RTI applications being generated by the appellant, he has confused himself. Such targeted queries against specific officers of the civic bodies, seeking vast amount of information which are not available in the desired format, will certainly divert the attention of the Public Authority from their main task.
Hence upon perusal of the nature and span of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are voluminous in 16 nature, and thus it was well within the right of the PIO to call upon the appellant to inspect the record. The appellant did not turn up for inspection and thus forfeited his right to secure information.
The appeal is dismissed.
8. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001472, the appellant sought the following information:
"Please provide me the following information under RTI Act from Shahdra North and Shahdra South .Periods of sought information 1st June, 2014 to 30th June, 2014 (EE refers to the EE Mr. Ojha, Gagan Khanna, Shri Mandir and P.R.Meena) a. Provide me copy of weekly certificates submitted by the Executive Engineer Mr.Ojha to SE of the Zone which is required in compliance of office order No.D/97/EE(B)HJQ dated 6th Feb, 2003. b. Provide me copy of record regarding demolition order passed against any property which were forwarded to the area sub-registrar of Govt. of NCT of Delhi as per instruction contained in office order (D/33/SE(B)HaII/10 dated 9th June, 2010).
c. Inform me the name of the officer whose duty is to view seriously and take stern action against the E.E. (in case reply of point No.'A' is negative).
d. Inform me total work stop notice with respect to unauthorized construction sent by the Building Departments and also inform me in total numbers of cases out of them in which further procedure followed as prescribed in office order No.D/97/EE(B) HJQ dated 6th February, 2003 and D/33/SE (B) Ha II/10 dated 9th June, 2010 The CPIO replied as under:
a. No such information is available on the record of this office, the information sought is also pertains to Building Department, 17 Shahdara (South) Zone. Therefore, your RTI application is being transferred to PIO/EE(B)-I &II/Sh/S/Zone. b. Photocopy of the letters sent to the Sub-Registrar, GNCTD can be had on payment of Rs.2 per page within 30 days at any working day between 2.00 pm to 4.00 pm. The information sought has also pertains to Building Department, Shahdara (South)Zone. Therefore your RTI application is being transferred to PIO/EE(B)-I &II/Sh/S/Zone.
c. No such information is available on record of this office, the information sought also pertains to Buildign Department Shahdra (Sough)Zone. Therefore, your RTI application is beign transferred to PIO/EE(B)-I &II/Sh/S/Zone.
d. ....Nos. of work stop notice have been sent by the PIO/EE(B)-I &II/Sh/N/Zone. Rest of the information is not available on record of this office. The information sought also pertains to Building Department, Shahdara (South)Zone. Therefore, your RTI application is being transferred to PIO/EE(B)-I &II/Sh/S/Zone Upon an appeal preferred by the appellant, the FAA directed the PIO to furnish information on payment of actual cost of information. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission. In the memorandum of second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant had not mentioned any specific details of any detriment suffered on account of denial of information which would warrant award of compensation.
Decision: [CIC/YA/A/2015/001472]: Upon perusal of the nature and span of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are nothing short of data mining. Information sought on point (d) alone would be voluminous in nature and the compilation of information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Besides this, no public interest has been put forth by the appellant.
18The appeal is dismissed.
9. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001474 the appellant sought information regarding the number of properties sealed etc. under the respective deputy commissioners. In addition, the appellant further sought details regarding fixation of responsibility of Deputy Commissioners who did not act as per the office circular No. 47/Addl.CM.ENGG/2010 dated 24/05/10. He further sought details of the officers who have the disciplinary authority over Deputy Commissioners in terms of the aforesaid office circular. The CPIO replied on 20.11.2014 and furnished information on some points as available on records. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish information on remaining points free of cost. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: [CIC/YA/A/2015/001474]: After perusal of records, the CPIO is directed to furnish information numerical information only against RTI ID 1189 dated 20.11.2014 free of cost. The order shall be complied within 2 weeks of receipt.
10. In CIC/YA/A/2015/002862 the appellant sought copies of all show cause notices issued under the DMC Act against property bearing No.308, Sri Ram Nagar. The CPIO furnished information as available on record and raised demand of Rs. 4/- as cost of furnishing information. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish information free of cost within 15 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: In the memorandum of second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant has not mentioned any specific details of any detriment suffered on account of denial of information which would warrant award of compensation and hence his request for award of compensation is rejected. Due to the bulk of RTI applications made by the appellant against the respondent public authority in a short span of time and the latter's contention of being flooded with such queries, the 19 Commission is not inclined to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO.
After perusal of record, the PIO, EE(B) - II, EDMC is directed to furnish complete information afresh against RTI ID No. 1217 to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt..
The appeal is allowed.
11. In CIC/YA/A/2015/002894, the appellant sought multifaceted information about 3 properties against which the appellant had complained. In this connection he further sought to know the names of officers who dealt with the complaints under points A to G. The CPIO intimated that the information sought is not maintained readily and has to be compiled. He called upon the appellant to inspect the relevant records. However, the FAA directed the PIO to furnish complete information within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: The appellant had sought details of action taken upon his three complaints. None of the complaints are brought on record. Interestingly, the appellant is himself in doubt as to when he had made the complaints. The appellant remained absent in course of FAA hearing. Even the FAA observed that the appellant is unable to correlate between queries raised in RTI application and first appeal. The memorandum of second appeal refers to different queries altogether. This chaos is attributable to the inordinate number of RTI applications & appeals filed by the appellant in a short span of time.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
12. In file no. CIC/YA/A/2015/002926, the appellant sought details of all nodal officers appointed under the RTI Act in EDMC along with details of compliance of CIC decisions involving the appellant. The CPIO furnished part information as available besides calling upon the 20 appellant to inspect the relevant record. The FAA advised the appellant to furnish a copy of the RTI application to the PIO afresh. Feeling dissatisfied over the information furnished, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: Upon perusal of the nature of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are for information voluminous in nature, and not maintained in the format sought. Thus it was well within the right of the PIO to call upon the appellant to inspect the record since the appellant has asked for the information in a particular format which is not available in compiled form. Compilation of the information sought would have caused disproportionate diversion of the meagre resources of public authority. The appellant did neither turn up for inspection nor for the hearing of first appeal. The appellant then did forego his right.
The appeal is dismissed.
13. In CIC/YA/A/2016/000226, the appellant sought copies of construction watch register as reviewed by Superintendent Engineer & Deputy Commissioner, minutes of meeting of staff of Shahdara Building Dept etc. on 9 points. The CPIO replied and intimated that information sought was not maintained in the department. The PIO transferred the RTI to Shahdara South Zone on some of the points. The FAA directed the appellant to furnish information to the appellant within 10 days. Aggrieved over non compliance of the FAA, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: Upon perusal of the nature of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are voluminous in nature. The appellant is entitled to inspect the relevant records as against RTI ID 2343 and the PIO, B -II (N) is directed to offer 21 inspection to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to take certified copies free of cost up to 50 pages.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
14. In CIC/YA/A/2016/000227, the appellant sought information from Building Department Shahdara South & North regarding numerical data of complaints/grievances/police reports received and their follow up action etc on 09 points. The CPIO called upon the appellant to inspect the relevant record as against one query and replied the rest. Some of the points were deemed as hypothetical by the PIO. However, the appellant did not inspect the records not attended the hearing of first appeal.
Decision: Upon perusal of the nature of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are not only voluminous in nature but disparate and confusing. The appellant had virtually demanded a complete audit of each and every complaint made during 6 months. The appellant was offered to inspect the relevant record but the same offer stood forfeited since the appellant did not avail of the opportunity.
The appeal is dismissed.
15. In CIC/YA/A/2016/001358 & CIC/YA/A/2016/002180 the appellant sought details of public grievances received in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara North Zone between 01.09.2014 to 31.03.2015 and the details of action taken thereon along with other incidental information on 7 points. The PIO intimated that as many as 13485 letters were received by the Dy. Commissioner Office and the same included complaint & grievance letters. The FAA directed the PIO to transfer RTI to all HoDs in the zone for obtaining Action Taken Report on complaints marked to respective departments from the office of Dy.
22Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved over denial of information, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision:[ CIC/YA/A/2016/001358 & CIC/YA/A/2016/002180] After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds the nature of query to be nothing short of data mining which, if allowed would unnecessarily overawe the meagre resources of the public authority. A perusal of record does not even exhibit even an iota of public interest which would require the public authority to take on this gigantic task of furnishing this kind of information. The appeals are sans merit and dismissed accordingly.
16. In CIC/YA/A/2016/000857 the appellant sought details of total number of notices issued u/s 343, 344 & 345A DMC Act by all the three corporations along with address of properties booked, details of prosecution action taken etc. on 5 points. The CPIO furnished information relating to names of the staff posted in Building department and called upon the appellant to inspect rest of the information from the relevant records. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish information under a modified reply within 10 days. However, a perusal of the record indicates that the PIO merely forwarded a replica of the earlier letter to the appellant and did not modify his reply.
Decision: [CIC/YA/A/2016/000857] After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds the nature of query to be nothing short of compilation of an 'encyclopaedia' on the issue of unauthorized construction in Delhi. Furnishing information against such queries is not only impractical but a criminal wastage of time. A perusal of record does not even exhibit even an iota of public interest which would require the public authority to take on this gigantic task of furnishing this kind of information. The appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
2317. In appeal no. CIC/YA/A/2016/001617, appellant sought details of copies of inspection reports of properties reviewed by NDMC, SDMC & EDMC from 01.01.2015 to "31st Jun 2015" along with information incidental thereto. The PIO furnished information in part and denied rest of the information w.r.t. certain officers. Identical information is sought in appeal no. CIC/YA/A/2016/001620. In CIC/YA/A/2016/001840 & CIC/YA/A/2016/002173, CIC/YA/A/2016/002177; the appellant sought details of total police reports regarding unauthorized constructions along with details of cases assigned to Police along with statistical input on 09 points. The CPIO replied that the data relating to unauthorized construction is amalgamated and the same is not sorted on the basis of incidence of tip-off qua unauthorized construction. Rest of the information was denied as being 'not available in this office'.
Decision:[ CIC/YA/A/2016/001617; CIC/YA/A/2016/001620;
IC/YA/A/2016/001840 & CIC/YA/A/2016/002173, CIC/YA/A/2016/002177] Upon perusal of the nature of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are voluminous in nature and seek to gather data from various zones of Delhi. Collation of various bits of information w.r.t. to vast numbers of properties wherein notices under DMC Act were issued with names of officers & police complaints and that too for all the three corporations would be counterproductive for the public authority and invariably cause disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
18. In CIC/YA/A/2016/002176, the appellant sought information regarding name of officer deputed for hearing at MCD Appellate Tribunal on 13.01.2014 along with action taken against property bearing no. A- 5/3 West Jyoti Nagar etc. on 7 points. The CPIO furnished information in part and called upon the appellant to obtain information upon 24 payment of usual charges. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish modified reply within 15 days. Feeling aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: After a careful perusal of the record, the Commission finds that the FAA failed to observe that the appellant who resides at New Seeleampur is seeking information regarding a property situated at West Jyoti Nagar which is at a distance of around 4 k.m. The FAA having adjudicated a number of first appeals filed by the appellant should have at least given a speaking order mentioning therein the scope of the query , the format o information asked for and the inherent capacity of the the respondent to give out the nature and quantum of information sought. Since no public interest has been divulged, for seeking such a vast amount of information to be compiled , he could have disposed of the appea; directing the CPIO to give out the current status of the property in question w.r.t. the action taken by the authorities. Instead, he just ordered to give out information in a modified form in fifteen days. The Commission therefore finds it fit to set aside the FAO. Accordingly, the present appeal does not merit indulgence of this Commission and is dismissed.
19. In CIC/YA/A/2016/002178, the appellant sought details of all cases wherein complaints were forwarded by the Vigilance Department to all three municipal corporations alongwith host of bulk information viz. pending complaints before respective Dy. Commissioners, names of JE/AE/EE/SE with their allocated jurisdiction, details of meetings attended by Dy. Commissioner, details of properties inspected etc. The CPIO, B-II Shahdara North furnished information in part and denied details of complaints since the same were not maintained in the manner sought. CPIO, Vigilance Dept. furnished the no. of forwarded complaints. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish information after reconsidering the application within 15 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
25Decision: Upon perusal of the nature of information sought and the corresponding reply furnished by the PIO, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further directions. The queries made herein are seeking voluminous information and seek to gather data from every nook & corner of Delhi. Collation of such information would be counterproductive for the public authority and invariably cause disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. The appellant who has filed so many RTI application is well aware that the data for ll the Municipal Corporations will not reside with one CPIO of a corporation and yet, he has sought humungous information w.r.t. to virtually each & every officer of the three corporations. At the first look itself, the query is ludicrous. And yet, the Ld. FAA has directed the PIO to furnish information. It is a sad commentary on the adjudicating ability of the FAAs in the Municipal Corporations who seem to have found the easy way out of disposal by giving non speaking orders of this kind. The appeal is dismissed.
20. In CIC/YA/A/2016/002254, the appellant has annexed as many as 4 RTI applications under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001. There is no explanation brought on record as to why the same were not pursued with the Public Grievances Commission, which is the designated appellate forum in terms of Section 7 of the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001. As such, this Commission does not exercise jurisdiction over the matter and the appellant may pursue his remedy in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
21. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001031, CIC/YA/2015/001429 the appellant sought details of all proceedings under Chapter XVI of DMC Act from all three municipal corporations. In CIC/YA/2015/001129, the appellant sought information regarding unauthorized construction as undertaken respectively by various officers of Shahdara Zone under 11 points. In CIC/YA/2015/001291, the appellant sought details of order by CIC and status of their compliance alongwith incidental information 26 under 7 points. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001427 & CIC/YA/2015/002896, the appellant sought details of compliance of various office circulars relating to prevention of unauthorized construction and other related information on 5 points. In CIC/YA/2015/001428, CIC/YA/2015/002579 & CIC/YA/2015/002897, the appellant sought total no. of complaints referred to Shahdara Zone by Vigilance Dept and action taken thereof. In short, the appellant sought an exhaustive performance audit of the entire zone. In CIC/YA/2015/001430 & CIC/YA/2015/002585, the appellant sought details of weekly certificates submitted by Executive Engineer to S.E. besides all records of demolition action undertaken; work stop notices issued under 4 points. In CIC/YA/2015/001431, the appellant sought details of all properties of Shahdara Zone wherein demolition action was undertaken alongwith corresponding demolition reports etc. on 5 points. In CIC/YA/2015/001432, the appellant sought action taken report upon various office circulars on the issue of unauthorized construction along with details fixation of responsibility of officers concerned etc. on 5 points. In CIC/YA/2015/001433 & CIC/YA/2015/002576 the appellant sought details of all instances of police reports received in reference to unauthorized construction by Shahdara Zone (North & South) besides seeking information of details of inspection, disposal of all such reports, total no of notices issues and record in support of all statistical data. In CIC/YA/2015/002582, CIC/YA/2015/002895 the appellant sought details of list of properties alongwith address which were meant to be demolished. He also sought details of officer designated for the same and demolition reports. In CIC/YA/2015/002898 the appellant sought details of all properties in Shahdara Zone which were found to be existing in violation of building bye laws and details of staff deputed to act against each of them alongwith incidental information on 5 points. He also sought copies of all inspection reports generated between 01.09.2014 to 14.12.2014. In CIC/YA/2016/001618, CIC/YA/2016/001619, the appellant sought data relating to all actions taken against unauthorized properties under the DMC Act across all 27 three municipal corporations for the year 2014. In CIC/YA/2016/001625 the appellant sought details of compliance & all correspondence exchanged in reference to securing of compliance of 08 decisions of this Commission. In CIC/DS/A/2013/000829, CIC/DS/A/2013/000874, CIC/DS/A/2013/000917, CIC/YA/A/2014/000995, CIC/DS/A/2013/001332, the appellant sought multifaceted & repetitive information on all aspects of unauthorized construction in all zones of EDMC, viz. details of police reports received, details of action taken upon such reports, inspection reports, booking action & other actions under DMC Act, reports prepared by JEs/AEs, bookings affected in tenure of various Dy. Commissioners, jurisdiction of various officers of Building Department and information on alleged 'delinquency' part of over a dozen officers etc. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001463 the appellant sought details of procedures followed by the investigation officer and the entire record maintained during the investigation in the vigilance cases. Though the appellant have not categorically mentioned what investigation he has referred to but it is inferred that from the accompanied details that he has referred to investigation in the cases of unauthorized construction. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001464 the appellant has sought addresses of properties, contents of complaints made against officers of EDMC as investigated by Vigilance. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001465, he has sought details of officers of vigilance department and the cases investigated by them relating to officers of Building Department of Shahdara Zone. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001466 the appellant sought bulk data of total number of complaints/reports sent by EDMC Vigilance Department to the Deputy Commissioner, EDMC on 11 points.
Decision: [CIC/YA/A/2015/001031; CIC/YA/2015/001429;
CIC/YA/2015/001291; CIC/YA/A/2015/001427;
CIC/YA/2015/002896; CIC/YA/2015/001428;
CIC/YA/2015/002579; CIC/YA/2015/002897;
CIC/YA/2015/001430; CIC/YA/2015/002585;
28
CIC/YA/2015/001431; CIC/YA/2015/001432;
CIC/YA/2015/001433; CIC/YA/2015/002576;
CIC/YA/2015/002582; CIC/YA/2015/002895;
CIC/YA/2015/002898; CIC/YA/2016/001618;
CIC/YA/2016/001619; CIC/YA/2016/001625;
CIC/DS/A/2013/000829; CIC/DS/A/2013/000874;
CIC/DS/A/2013/000917; CIC/YA/A/2014/000995;
CIC/DS/A/2013/001332; CIC/YA/A/2015/001463;
CIC/YA/A/2015/001464; CIC/YA/A/2015/001465;
CIC/YA/A/2015/001466]
All the aforesaid appeals seek information which is not only voluminous but disparate in nature. As indicated earlier, he is seeking information about every possible officer about the three municipal corporation w.r.t. unauthorized constructions, enquiries, police reports, meetings, notings of file etc. In many cases the information sought through many RTI applications is the same. Majority of the information sought is not maintained in the format sought and just as well should not be. Any attempt to compile the same would inevitably lead to wastage of thousand man hours in addition of incurrence of expenditure running in huge amount. The Commission finds it to be a case of extreme passion displayed on the part of the appellant to either show some officers in poor light or to point out the shortcomings in the working of the municipal corporations. The Commission is constrained to make the above remark in view of the relentless pursuit of the appellant in targeting officers through seeking copious amount of information/ documents about them. His repetitive RTI applications seeking every bit of information about sealing & demolition for all three corporations is bound to overawe any public authority which have their own built in capacity & limits. It may be mentioned here that the information regarding booking, i.e. the first step against unauthorized construction is available on MCD website.
29Interestingly, in all the aforesaid appeals, the respective CPIOs replied to the RTI applications and first appeals were heard. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the number of RTI applications made by the appellant, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further order in this batch of appeals which are hereby dismissed.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation:
22. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001183 the appellant sought information regarding all cases in which prosecution was initiated against unauthorized construction across all three Corporations and other incidental information. The appellant did not mention the period for which the information sought pertained to. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001463 the appellant sought the list of properties against which demolition had either been taken or contemplated along with the monthly reports of demolition received by the Deputy Commissioner. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001776 the appellant sought details of action taken on various office memoranda on the issue unauthorized construction and the steps taken by the Deputy Commissioner in prevention of unauthorized construction In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000241 the appellant sought inspection of DAK register of Deputy Commissioner Office and entire details of disposal of complains received in the office of DC, inspection of sealing register, building plan register, demolition record register etc. The CPIO called upon the appellant to inspect the desired record on 27.01.2014. However, the perusal of record reveals that the appellant did not avail the aforesaid opportunity. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000381 the appellant sought multifaceted information regarding the details of police complaints received alleging instances of unauthorized construction and the action taken thereon as per Chapter XVI of DMC Act. The CPIO intimated the complainant that information sought was not readily available and called upon the complainant to inspect the record; however, the appellant did not inspect the record. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000211 he complainant 30 sought details of all the nodal officers appointed under the RTI Act in EDMC/SDMC and NDMC and has further sought entire record generated and in pursuance of various office memoranda relating to administrative reforms. The CPIO furnished reply within stipulated time frame. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001128 the appellant sought details of all the nodal officers appointed under RTI, details of pending compliance of CIC orders involving appellant etc. The CPIO replied within stipulated time frame. Upon a perusal of the reply the Commission finds it adequate and no further directs needs to be given.
In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001584 and CIC/YA/A/2015/001592 the appellant sought information under 28 points regarding the working of Vigilance Department of SDMC. Primarily the appellant sought details of reports of investigation and the material connected therewith. The CPIO replied within the time frame and furnished information as available on record. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001940 & CIC/YA/C/2015/001126 the appellant sought complete details of properties booked, inspection reports, addresses of properties booked and all the bookings made on account of unauthorized construction by all the three Municipal Corporations for the month of October, 2014. The PIO/Najafgarh Zone intimated the appellant that booking records can be accessed from the web portal of SDMC and called upon the appellant to inspect rest of the information in person. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001941 the appellant sought details of total number of cases wherein prosecution has been made alongwith officers entrusted with their duties to prevent unauthorized construction and ensure compliance of all internal office orders etc. The CPIO furnished complete information within the stipulated time frame.
In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000300 the appellant sought details of properties booked on the basis of police reports alongwith the cases registered under section 466 of DMC Act, number of properties actually sealed. The aforesaid information was sought against the respective tenure of Mr. Atique Ahmed and Ms Garima Gupta, Deputy 31 Commissioners, SDMC. The CPIO furnished information as available on record. The appellant was duly intimated that Mr. Atique Ahmed was never posted in the concerned Zone. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000301, the appellant sought information regarding complaints and grievances made by the public and police reports received alongwith number of pending complaints, alongwith action taken report thereon etc. The CPIO furnished information as available on record. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000302 the appellant sought inspection of DAK register Zonal Deputy Commissioner and Executive Engineers office. He further sought inspection of complete record containing complains of unauthorized construction inspection reports conducted by JE and the sealing action taken thereon, if any. The CPIO furnished information as available on record and called upon the appellant to inspect the information which was not specifically mentioned by the appellant. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001624 the appellant sought details of salary disbursed to the staff deputed at Building Department and the Deputy Commissioner's office, total amount paid to the "demolition gang" out of the funds of Engineering Department etc. under 6 points. The CPIO furnished information in part and called upon the appellant to inspect the relevant record.
Decision [Common to all appeals against SDMC]:
Most of the aforesaid appeals relating to SDMC are mirror images of second appeals filed with the EDMC & reveal the same pattern of queries. While the first batch of appeals relate to the Deputy Commissioners, with all possible information related to complaints, enquires, police complaints, unauthorized construction within their jurisdiction, the second batch again seeks information w.rt. unauthorized constructions in all three corporations. The third batch seeks information regarding individual officers related to u/c and the fourth expectedly, refers to the memoranda & their implementation.32
Majority of the information sought is not maintained in the format sought and any attempt to compile the same would inevitably lead to wastage of thousand man hours and in addition, incurrence of unnecessary expenditure. In some cases, the appellant was advised to inspect the record but he voluntarily did forgo his right. The refusal/ inability on the part of appellant to avail of the offer remains unexplained as also his routine absence from FAA hearing. Interestingly, the FAA has observed in some cases, that the first appeals do not relate to the annexed RTI applications under hearing. In all the aforesaid appeals, the respective CPIOs have replied to the RTI applications and first appeals were heard. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the inordinate number of RTI applications made by the appellant, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further order in this batch of appeals which are hereby dismissed.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation:
A. Karol Bagh Zone
23. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001775 the appellant sought details of show cause notices issued under section 345 A DMC Act alongwith the addresses of such properties and the details of prosecution. He further sought total number of "delinquent staff" of Building Department who were responsible for inability in preventing unauthorized construction.
The appellant sought this information from all the three Municipal Corporations The CPIO Karol Bagh Zone called upon the appellant to inspect the relevant records.
In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001942 the appellant sought names of all functionaries posted in different zones, addresses of properties found constructed unauthorizedly alongwith the addresses of properties seized on account of variation beyond the sanctioned plan etc. The CPIO furnished reply within stipulated time frame. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish amended reply to the appellant. The PIO complied with the FAO 33 and advised the appellant to visit MCD website to get details of properties booked for violating the building byelaws.
City Zone In file No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001842, the appellant sought information regarding inspection reports and review reports as held by Supdt. Engineer and Deputy Commissioner. In addition he further sought copy of the record of random checking as maintained by as many as 8 officers posted in City Zone of North DMC. He further sought total number of complaints received from Police or other sources regarding unauthorized construction alongwith copy of the register wherein they were entered, besides other information on more than 20 points. The CPIO replied and furnished information as available on record. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish qualified reply. In compliance to the FAO, the PIO furnished the following reply:
"All questions asked by you are voluminous in nature and therefore cannot be given at this stage. However, you are requested to attend this office within 15 days from 2.00 pm to 4.00pm to inspect the available record in this office. "
B. Civil Lines Zone In file No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002199 the appellant sought names of officers who had conducted inspection in pursuance of letter No.14(5)/10/RM/757/10114 dated 27.04.2010 issued by Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi. In the aforesaid context the appellant sought copy of records as maintained by JE in charge of the ward regarding routine inspection of property and other incidental information on 14 points. The CPIO furnished the following reply:
"With reference to the above mentioned transfer RTI application bearng ID No.287 dated 22.05.2012, in this regard it is submitted that the information sought by the applicant is voluminous in nature and comes 34 under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. However, the applicant may inspect the available record with prior permission in the office of EE(B)/CLZ as per rules."
C. S.P.Zone In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001292 the appellant sought inspection of record regarding DAK register of Deputy Commissioner Office containing specific entries of correspondence exchanged with building department. He further sought inspection of complaints received by Deputy Commissioner, S.E., alongwith inspection of sealing registers of building plan sanction register, demolition record register, demolition charge recovery register etc. The CPIO SP Zone called upon the appellant to inspect the relevant record. The appellant did not avail the opportunity to inspect the record . However, he filed first appeal. He remained absent in the course of hearing of FAA. The FAA directed the PIO to offer inspection afresh. The appellant inspected the record on 21.04.2015. Aggrieved with the alleged suppression of some record in the course of inspection, the appellant approached the Commission. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001193, the appellant sought number and details of cases wherein prosecution was initiated for unauthorized construction alongwith incidental information on 5 points. The CPIO/SPZ furnished information as available on record. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish an amended reply within 10 days. Aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
D. Civil Lines Zone:
In files No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001123, CIC/YA/A/2015/001124 &, the information sought is identical. The appellant sought total number of show cause notices issued under 345-A of the DMC Act alongwith action taken on properties under 343 and 344 of DMC Act. He further sought addresses of all the properties and the stage of prosecution as well. This information was sought for all three Corporations in Delhi. The CPIO denied disclosure since the information sought was voluminous and not available in a compiled form. However, he called upon the appellant to inspect the 35 relevant records within 10 working days. On the perusal of FAO, it is transpired that the appellant did not avail the opportunity of inspection whereupon the FAA granted another opportunity for inspection.
Decision [Common to all appeals against North DMC] All the aforesaid appeals relating to North DMC are seeking humongous amount of information. In many cases the information asked for is repetitive as the information has already been sought from the EDMC & SDMC. Majority of the information sought is not maintained in the format sought and any attempt to compile the same would inevitably lead to wastage of thousand man hours in addition on incurrence of unnecessary expenditure. In some cases, the appellant was advised to inspect the record but the appellant voluntarily did forgo his right. Interestingly, the FAA has again observed that the first appeals and RTI applications do not correlate. In all the aforesaid appeals, the respective CPIOs have replied to the RTI applications and first appeals were heard. Considering the aforesaid aspects relating to nature & amplitude of information, repetitive queries, one RTI applications setting out multiple subjects, seeking same information from three corporations and the inordinate number of RTI applications made by the appellant, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further order in this batch of appeals which are hereby dismissed.
24. In file No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001423, the appellant clubbed as many as 6 RTI applications alongwith the memorandum of appeal. In each of the application, voluminous information from all Municipal Corporations of Delhi was sought. Interestingly, the appellant did not prefer first appeal against the reply received against either of the RTI applications.
In such circumstances the Commission is not inclined to entertain the present appeal in its present form. These appeals are accordingly dismissed with a liberty to appellant to pursue available remedy in accordance with law.
25. In file No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002174 the appellant sought copies of weekly reports regarding unauthorized construction as received in 36 Shahdara North and South Zone of EDMC. However, the application is made under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001 and the Commission is not an appellate forum under the Delhi RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the present appeal is not maintainable in its present form before this Commission, and the appellant may take remedies as available in law. The appeal is dismissed.
26. The appellant during hearing has been stressing upon the same point charging the municipal authorities with not discharging their functions properly in the context of checking unauthorized constructions across the city. He states that the civic authorities do not exercise their powers under Chapter XVI of the MCD Act and do not act to prevent unauthorized construction in first place. He alleges that the civic authorities allow an unauthorized structure to be erected and wait till completion of construction before issuing a 'Work Stop' notice under Section 344 of the DMC Act. He further asserts that the discretionary power vesting under the Commissioner u/s 344 is not exercised evenly and rather the civic authorities employ the policy of pick & choose. He further contends that the power to seal unauthorized constructions as available under Section 345A is sparingly exercised.
27. Countering the submissions made by the appellant, it is argued by the respondents that the Building department functioning under the aegis of the respective corporation has been entrusted with the duty to check violation of construction norms. It is argued that a large area compromising of 3-5 wards has to be looked after each Junior Engineer/ Assistant Engineer and thus, due to acute dearth of manpower, the detection of instances of unauthorized construction and follow up action gets delayed. Another limb of their contention is that they often face stiff resistance from the alleged violators and general public. It is further averred that there had been instances wherein officers of respondent authorities were manhandled. It is submitted that majority of sealing & demolition drives conducted by them fail to take off or yield tangible outcome due to resistance by public, unavailability of Police assistance 37 or due to political indulgence. The respondents before the Commission deny the allegation of lack of transparency in the process of dealing with unauthorized construction. The Commission is apprised that the concerned A.E./ J.E. with the aid of their subordinate staff keep vigil over their allocated area and record any unauthorized construction in the Construction Watch Register. All complaints addressed to civic authority including any suo motu cognizance against any unauthorized construction are thus recorded in Construction Watch Register.
28. It is also stated by the respondents that the appellant is a habitual information seeker. He has been filing relentlessly RTI queries over the last few years seeking a huge amount of information. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant is not an affected party in the strict sense, of alleged unauthorized construction at other various localities of Delhi. It is sought to be argued by the respondents that such appellants operate in a professional manner seeking information about unauthorized constructions from far off areas and there seems no public interest in seeking such information. It is submitted that the appellant makes numerous RTI applications and as such, it become very difficult to furnish reply within the statutory time frame. The respondents draw attention of the Commission to the decision in Amarjit Singh versus CPIO, East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. wherein it was held that:
It is stated by the CPIOs present during the hearing that any specific complaint highlighting unauthorized construction is put up before the Executive Engineer of the zone and is thereafter marked to the concerned area Junior Engineer for carrying out field inspection & taking appropriate steps. It is stated that if any instance of unauthorized construction is made out, a work stop notice is issued & the building is booked as per the DMC Act. The respondents strenuously assert that due to acute shortage of staff, it becomes very difficult to take prompt action on unauthorized construction. It is suggested that in most instances, the building owners move application for regularization and thus, 38 the penal proceedings remain halted till the application is decided. The resistance put forth by people, lack of availability of Police personnel for support in carrying out demolition are other important factors involved which offer stiff resistance in carrying out the mandate of law. The Commission is quite alive of the magnitude of the problem.
The respondents state to be working under tremendous pressure being cast by habitual information seekers. The acute staff shortage is stated to be an aggravating factor. It is states that the information sought is not compiled in the form sought and the efforts to collate the same result in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this ground alone, the respondents make a forceful plea to discard the present appeals under Section 7(9).
29. The appellant asserts that the custodians of information do not clearly demarcate and hence the PIOs of the respondent authority keep transferring RTI applications using Section 6(3) of the RTI Act whereas the said provision can be invoked only in inter-public authority transfer. He argues that for accessing information within the organization, Section 5(4) needs to be invoked. The Commission concurs to a certain extent with the assertion of the appellant on this score. A PIO must resort to Section 5(4) while securing information within at least one division of the organization and Section 6(3) can be pressed only when information spans across divisions or zones. But the anomaly exists due to appointment of CPIOs for even small units or divisions within the MCD.
30. Having adjudicated all the appeals above, the Commission finds all the present appeals against the practical regime, which the RTI Act, 2005 endeavours to establish. The Commission also observes that it has already taken up the issue of repetitive and bulk RTI applications in the case of Amarjeet Singh v. CPIO, EDMC, in which it was held that:
The right to information is a cherished & formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry. The RTI tool is meant to be use diligently. Though the legislature has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the Right to seek Information, but the same is inherent. As the old age 39 wisdom suggests, excess of anything is bad. The preamble & the relevant part of the object of the RTI Act is reproduced hereinafter:
to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
[Emphasis supplied] Thus, in the collective wisdom of legislature, the expression "practical regime" was employed to act as a guiding light while reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying object beneath its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercise with responsibility. Reckless exercise of right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. In the facts of the present appeals, the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc is not in consonance with the object of the statute. The Commission derives force from the ratio expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.[MANU/SC/0932/2011]. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinafter:
37. ..... The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Objects despite being pious get ridiculed if achieved through improper means. The Commission appreciates the concern exhibited by the appellant for checking the menace of unauthorized construction however finds the means adopted for the same to be avoidable. Filing a series of RTI applications and flooding the CPIOs with such queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. This Commission being creature of the RTI Act is duty bound to guard the ethos propounded by the statute. Under the circumstances, delay in replying to the RTI queries is condoned.
40Presently, the Commission is discharging its adjudicatory work through 10 benches and still the average waiting time before an appellant is heard in second appeal is more than one year. As rightly said, justice delayed is justice denied. Timely dispensation of justice is the foremost essential of institutional justice. The expression 'citizens' as occurring in the preamble is employed in plural sense thereby reflecting the conferment of a collective right upon the citizens of the nation. A single person cannot usurp a collective right to the peril of all others having an identical right. Could a person be allowed to make indiscriminate & unchecked second appeals so as to clog the system of adjudication itself to the detriment of others? Wouldn't it be a criminal waste of time & resources of the Commission which has the obligation to cater to thousands of genuine information seekers facing resistance? Should this Commission remain a mute spectator to the menace of reckless litigation created in name of checking the menace of unauthorized construction? Can person seeking information in bulk be allowed to eclipse the right of other information seekers? The answer is plainly negative. The registry is directed that any further appeal by the appellant herein shall not be listed for hearing before this bench before January 2018.
31. Similar view was taken by the Commission in Rajendra Gupta v.
North DMC & Ors. wherein more than 600 appeals of the appellant were clubbed and decided summarily.
32. While deciding CIC/AT/A/2008/00097, the Commission held that:
answering the elaborate and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic, imposes heavy cost on the public authority and tends to divert its resources, which brings it within the scope of section 7(9) of RTI Act.
33. Upon a careful perusal of each RTI application filed by the appellant, the Commission finds them answered by the respondents, given their capacity and resource constraints. Since the queries made by the appellants span across large area and range from 2010 to 2015 in some of the cases, the Commission finds the exercise of appellant as nothing short of 'metadata mining'. Though, the Right to Information Act as understood in popular parlance does not enjoin an information seeker to 41 specify his / her object of seeking information; however no right is unbounded.
34. Having heard the averment from both sides, the Commission notes that the appellant while articulating his views on the working of the MCD has not provided any new information. The working of the MCD in countering unauthorized constrictions has been commented upon adversely by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and Public Grievances Commission and even this bench of the Commission. This however, still does not give unfettered right to the appellant to bombard the public authority with so many RTI applications seeking humungous information which would necessarily divert the attention of the public authorities from their daily work. It has been observed by the Commission that in some cases it would be well nigh impossible to reply at all to such queries. The RTI regime is not meant to satisfy the insatiable demands of one individual, which would detract the public authority completely from discharging its normal functions.
35. As a sequel to the foregoing, the present appeals are disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 42