Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anil Kumar Chandhok vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 13 February, 2019

                                के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCS/A/2017/129104

 Shri Anil Kumar Chandhok                                  ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                      बनाम


 PIO, Executive Engineer-(Build.)-II/South Zone,      ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
 South Delhi, Municipal Corporation.


Date of Hearing                      :   12.02.2019
Date of Decision                     :   12.02.2019
Information Commissioner             :   Shri Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha

 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                 :   27.10.2016
PIO replied on                           :   28.11.2016
First Appeal filed on                    :   Date not Mention
First Appellate Order on                 :   22.12.2016
2ndAppeal/complaint received on          :   20.03.2017

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant vide RTI application dated 27.10.2016, seeking information on five points pertaining tothe office of the Deputy Commissioner, Building Department SDMC Green Park, New Delhi, in the following order:-

(i)Status of the complaints filed by undersigned dated 31.05.2016 and 05.06.2016 received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Building Department SDMC, Green Park, New Delhi &action taken in this regard.

(ii) Latest status of the above Complaint dated 31.05.16 which was forwarded to SE II by dispatch no 3810/DC/N, from SE to EE wide dispatch no. 2258/SE/0606.16 from EE to AE wide dispatch no 2320/EEII/07.06.16.

(iii) Status of complaints filed online bearing No. (1) GRV/STZ/2016/075929 (2) GRV/STZ/2016/075929 and (3) GRV/STZ/2016/075929

(iv) Why there was no response from the department for above online complaints?

(v) Information regarding Bye Laws for curbing and disallowing the following:-

A. The unauthorized construction on top of terrace, construction of extended balconies, construction of additional areas by erecting columns from the road or back lane, fixing of railings on top of parapets, fixing of fixed glass glazing on the outer walls of sizes more than 2,00SQM which may be a life threatening in the event of failure during earthquake or storms.

B. The new electricity connection for the illegally constructed area on top of terrace so that the load on existing cables, panels and transformers is not increased as already there is shortage of power.

C. The new IGL connection for the illegally constructed area on top of terrace.

D. The unauthorized construction of kitchen and bathroom on top of terrace which results in increase of load of sewerage on the existing system of drainage pipes.

E. Parking of two wheeler in front or sides of the ground floor houses in spite of the fact the upper floor owners have been allotted garages for the same.

PIO/Executive Engineer-(Bldg.-II) vide letters dated 28.11.2016 furnished the information enclosing copy of the guideline for addition/alteration for DDA flats. The appellant was further informed that as per record, no action u/s 343, 344 of DMC Act 1957 was taken against the property in question.

Being dissatisfied with the information received, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated nil.FAA/Superintending Engineer-II/SZ, SDMC vide order dated 22.12.2016directed the PIO to provide the query wise information within ten days to the Appellant.

The PIO vide reply dated 30.12.2016 furnished point-wise information including the copy of movement register containing movement of the complaint dated 31.05.2016 and 05.06.2016.

Still aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant was present while the Respondent was not present, despite advance notice of hearing.

Appellant states that in order to prevent unauthorised, illegal construction on the common terrace, by his neighbour, he initiated preventive steps during the year 2016. Despite notifying the SDMC on time, no action was taken by the authorities to prevent such unauthorised construction. This was followed by filing of RTI queries by the Appellant, which have elicited evasive replies. The Appellant prayed that he seeks the complete information about the exact rules and bye laws under which this specific illegal construction on the terrace has been allowed and approved by the Respondent.

Documents submitted by Respondent indicate that point-wise information, including the movement registerhave been provided to the Appellant, but no compliance of FAA's orders have been done, nor have the Respondents enclosed the complete supporting documents. Representative deputed by the PIO VIZ. Sh. Rajeev Kumar, OI(B), SZ arrived after the hearing and submitted a handwritten note referring to the information provided vide letter dated 30.12.2016. He further informed that owner/occupier of the property number 3108, Sector A, Pkt B&C, Vasant Kunj had got the additional construction on his property regularised vide file no. 19/DDA/Adt. Att./B-II/SZ dated 18.07.2017 and deposited Rupees Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Five in this regard.

Decision After hearing the submissions of the Appellant and perusal of the records, the Commission notes that information as sought by the Appellant about Rules/Bye Laws regularising the illegal construction had not been provided to the Appellant. The responses dated 28.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 are both evasive and incomplete. The hand written note submitted by the Respondent- OI(B), SZ during the day explains that the illegal/unauthorised constructions pointed out by the Appellant in 2016, were subsequently regularised vide order dated 18.07.2017 and requisite fee deposited in this regard.

The Commission refrains from commenting on the procedure adopted in regularising the illegal and unauthorised construction. However, the conduct of the PIO in furnishing incomplete information and not appearing for the hearing, cannot be overlooked.

The Commission thus directs the PIO-Sh. Bhushan Kumar to furnish complete information about the exact Rules/Bye- laws and Guidelines under which the unauthorised construction on property number 3108, Sector A, Pkt B&C, Vasant Kunj has been regularised vide order dated 18.07.2017. Responses against each of the queries raised by the Appellant shall be provided within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, failing which appropriate action shall ensue against the PIO. The PIO is further directed to submit an explanation for providing incomplete and inaccurate information to the Appellant vide replies dated 28.11.2016 and 30.12.2016. Reply/Explanation from Sh. Bhushan Kumar must reach the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

                                                   Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha
                                         Information Commissioner     (सूचना आयुक्त )

Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत)


Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514




                                                                        Page 4 of 4