Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

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

Central Information Commission

Mr.Manoj Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 May, 2012

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

                                                               Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000720/18912
                                                                       Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000720

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant                            :      Mr. Manoj Kumar
                                            R/o H No F-71/5, Gali No. 3,
                                            Subhash Vihar, Bahjan Pura,
                                            Delhi-110053

Respondent                           :      Mr. K. C. Meena

Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the SE, City Zone, Zonal Office Building, MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 RTI application filed on : 22/11/2011 PIO replied : 23/12/2011.

First appeal filed on                :      27/12/2011
First Appellate Authority order      :      19/01/2011
Second Appeal received on            :      19/02/2012

Information Sought:

1) How many guest houses and restaurants are there in the Jama Masjid Zone running with license? Provide their names along with the dates when the license was issued to them.

2) Provide details as to how and on what basis the government/MCD collects taxes from these guest houses and restaurants?

3) How many rooms and beds are there in one guest house (least no.)?

4) How many rooms and beds are there in one guest house (maximum no.)?

5) What should be the height (max. floors) of one guest house?

6) Is there any guest house which has a basement to it in the Jama Masjid Zone, if yes then provide the name of the same and which official has given the permission of the same, provide the name of the officer and also provide the date on which such permission was given by the concerned officer?

7) If the basement so constructed is wrong/illegal as per the law of the government or MCD then what action has been taken by the MCD on the same?

8) Provide details as to for how many rooms the license has been given by the MCD to the Arsh Guest House located at H. No 755, Motor Markets, Jama Masjid?

9) Has any permission been given to the Arsh Guest House located at H No 755, Motor Market Jama Masjid for construction of the basement? If yes, then please provide the name of the officer who has given this permission and also provide the copy of such order. The Appellant is ready to pay the requisite fee.

10) In whose name is the Arsh Guest House located at H. No 755, Motor Market, Jama Masjid presently? Provide complete details along with the address and the proof of the license may also be given. The Appellant is ready to pay the requisite fee.

11) Does the Arsh Guest House fulfills all the conditions for running the guest house, then please provde the copy of those conditions. The Appellant is ready to pay the requisite fee.

Page 1 of 2

12) It has come to the notice of the Appellant that that unauthorized work was being carried out at Arsh Guest House located at H. No 755, Motor Markets, Jama Masjid. If yes then what action has been taken by MCD against the same, provide copy of the same. The Appellant is ready to pay the requisite fee.

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):

The PIO has provided point-wise information to the Appellant. Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): The FAA disposed off the appeal directing the PIO, Building Department to provide the requisite information within 12 working days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No reply provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, Public Information Officer & SE;
The Appellant states that he is satisfied with the information provided and therefore does not wish to pursue the matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been received by the PIO. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ss) Page 2 of 2