Central Information Commission
Mrp J George vs Gnctd on 25 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/0001359
Mr P J George v. PIO, SDM (Seelampur), GNCTD
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 17.04.2013 Reply: 20.07.2013 Time: 80 days
FAA: 07.06.2013 FAO: 26.07.2013 Time: 50 days
SA: 13.01.2014 Hearing:17.03.2015 Decision:25.03.2015
Result: Disposed of
Observation:
Parties Present:
The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. L.S.Yadav,
SDM and another.
Information sought:
1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to his Complaint dated 23.02.2012 in relation to illegal construction namely, reason for return of the notice issued to the illegal occupiers.
Ground for First Appeal:
2. Nonfurnishing of information within the prescribed period.
PIO response (First Appeal):
CIC/SA/A/2014/001359 Page 1
3. That the Concerned person is on leave and information will be furnished after his return.
First Appellate Authority Order:
4. PIO was directed to provide the requiste information to the appellant within 10 days. Ground For Second Appeal :
5. Nonfurnishing of information by PIO as per the RTI application. Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. The appellant is not present. The Public Authority made their submissions. The respondent officer explained that the appellant is having dispute with his own sister who is having an illegal construction in the appellant's area. The construction of the appellant is also illegal. The officer further explained that notification for demolition of the illegal constructions is issued on the police complaint. As far as the respondent authority is concerned, they will take action if there is any public nuisance created by the illegal construction under section 133 CrPC. If such nuisance is not there, they will transfer the case to the MCD who is having the duty of demolition of illegal constructions. In this case, they had withdrawn the notification as there is no public nuisance. The Commission, having heard the submissions and perused the record thoroughly, is not convinced by the submissions of the Public Authority. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inform the appellant and the Commission why certain notices issued to illegal property holders, based on the police complaints are withdrawn? It is the duty of the respondent authority to explain under RTI Act why action against illegal construction activities are withdrawn. Even though the complainants are having personal disputes and filing mutual complaints against each other, it is the duty of the authorities to enquire into the genuineness of the complaint. If the complaint revealed illegality, the respondent is under an obligation to CIC/SA/A/2014/001359 Page 2 take action. The above information shall be furnished to the Commission along with a copy to the appellant within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/ (M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of Delhi Sub Divisional Magistrate (Seelampur) District: North East GT Road, Seelampur, Delhi110053
2. Mr.Shah Nawaz Khan D44/1, Ground Floor, Delhi Darbar Road Bhajanpura, Delhi110053 CIC/SA/A/2014/001359 Page 3