Central Information Commission
Mrp K Verma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 13 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002560-YA
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2014
Date of Decision : 13.10.2014
Appellant : Shri P.K. Verma
Respondent : Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta,
AE(Building)/CPIO,
NDMC, Karol Bagh
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant fact emerging from appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 16.02.2013
PIO replied on : 13.03.2013
First Appeal filed on : 12.04.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 10.05.2013
Second Appeal received on : 08.11.2013
Information sought:
Appellant sought information relating to demonstration of illegal construction on Government land at K-127, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, in compliance of court order.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present.
Appellant sought the above information by filing an RTI application dated 16.02.2013. PIO provided a response on 13.03.2013 stating that there was no booking in respect of unauthorized construction at K-127, West Patel Nagar, as per their record. FAA vide order dated 10.05.2013, directed the PIO/EE(B), Karol Bagh Zone to send a specific/point wise reply to the questions raised by the appellant, and disposed of the appeal. In compliance of FAA's order, the PIO provided a point wise response on 24.05.2013, specifically stating that it was a case of encroachment of public land and the Court order has been sent to EE(M)-II, KBZ through SE/KBZ for necessary action.
Appellant submitted that the information sought has not been provided. The MCD has not taken any action against the unauthorized construction in and over the suit property, despite the fact that it had stated in its written statement that further action will be taken as per law. The MCD is a statutory agency responsible for enforcement of building laws. The MCD failed to perform its statutory duty despite booking of the said unauthorized construction on 01.12.1998. The approach of the MCD is so casual and indifferent that it has not visited the suit property and submitted status report despite orders of the Court dated 13.07.2010, 16.08.2010 and 27.09.2010. The Court vide its order dated January 2, 2010 had directed the respondent to remove pillars and further lantern/coverage over the open verandah at the first and second floor of the property no.K-127 West Patel Nagar, New Delhi within one month from the date of the order.
On a query by the Commission as to why the Court's order has not been complied with, the respondent Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta submitted that since the said construction is covered by the Delhi Protection Act, 2007 it cannot be demolished by them.
Decision:
After hearing both the sides, the Commission finds that the information sought has not been provided.
The Commission notes with concern that the respondents in the instant case have not fulfilled their statutory obligations and not shown respect to the order of the Hon'ble Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi. The Court vide their order had observed as follows:
"43. However, the MCD has not taken any action against the unauthorized construction in and over the suit property despite the fact that it had stated in its written statement that further action will be taken as per law. The MCD is a statutory agency responsible for enforcement of building laws. The MCD has failed to perform its statutory duty despite booking of the said unauthorized construction on 01.12.1998. Further, the approach of the MCD is so casual and indifferent that it has not visited the suit property and submitted status report despite orders of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2010, 16.08.2010 and 27.09.2010. Therefore, the court can issue appropriate directions to the MCD to rise from inertia and take requisite action against the unauthorized construction in the suit property. Further, the unauthorized construction in the suit property shall not be entitled to protection of moratorium under Delhi Special Laws for the reason that the coverage of open verandah on the ground floor of the suit property has infringed easementary right of natural light and air of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 and 3 should be directed to remove the unauthorized construction in the suit property and otherwise, the MCD shall perform its statutory obligations. The plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction. ......................
45(b) ....MCD is hereby directed to remove pillars and lantern/coverage of the open verandah of the property no. K-127, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi."
The Commission observes that the order of the Court is very specific and clear for removing the unauthorized construction raised but when no action has been taken by the public authority, the appellant moved the present RTI application to know the status of the matter. The PIO merely states that the matter pertains to the Maintenance division but at the same time the RTI application has not been transferred to them for providing information sought. The respondent also failed to mention that there was no unauthorized construction raised on the said property as observed by the Court.
The Commission directs PIO, EE(B), KBZ to provide information relating to unauthorized construction on the said property within two weeks and transfer the RTI application to EE(M)II, NDMC, Karol Bagh Zone for providing information relating to encroachment on the said property within five days from date of receipt of this order along with the Commission's decision.
The PIO EE(M)II, NDMC, Karol Bagh Zone is directed to provide complete information to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of RTI application and the Commission's order, under intimation to the Commission.
Show cause notice is also issued to the PIO EE(B), KBZ for deliberately obstructing the flow of information within the prescribed period under the RTI Act. PIO is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 17.11.2014 at 4 PM on which date he must present himself before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 12.11.2014 positively.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar