Central Information Commission
Mr.Satya Pal Tyagi vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000156/17682
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000156
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Satya Pal Tyagi
R/o: Village Jharoda Majra, Burari,
Delhi - 110084.
Respondent : Mr. R. Prasad
Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o The Superintending Engineer, Zonal Department, Civil Lines Zone, 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110054.
RTI application filed on : 06/07/2011 PIO replied : 19/08/2011 First appeal filed on : 29/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 30/09/2011 Second Appeal received on : 11/01/2012 Information Sought:
1. Which officer of MCD lead to the proceedings done against Khasra no.30/23/1 dated 21/10/09?
2. Which officer gave the order of proceedings for the above mentioned breaking for property?
3. Provide the photocopy of order if passed in written for the above mentioned breaking for property.
4. For the proceedings of above mentioned breaking for property's Khasra No. 30/23/1, was any help taken of the police force of P.S., Burari?
5. If any help was taken of the police force of P.S., Burari, provide the photocopy of letter sent to Police for help.
6. Provide the name of officers along with post. How many total employees and officers had gone for the breaking of the walls & irongate of khasra no.30/23/1 which is of 150 sq. yards?
7. Was any inspection done on the complaint letter dated 10/3/11, diary no.3810? If yes, provide the report related to inspection.
8. Which officer inspected the complaint for the allegation put by applicant?
9. Was all the MCD employees/police officers were included in inspection? If yes, provide the statement of all the applicants.
10. Who has the right for proceedings on cultivable land on which the construction is done, to be done by MCD, Revenue Department or Delhi Government?
11. If the Revenue Department or Delhi Government has the right for proceedings, why MCD did the breaking on khasra no.30/23/1 dated 21/10/09 which was done in village Jharoda Majra, Burari.
12. Was all the witnesses were included in the complaint filed on 10/03/11 diary no. 3810 for inspection.
13. Under which section MCD did proceedings for the broke up of property's khasra no.30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. According to records of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone, no demolition action was taken on khasra no. 30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
2. According to records of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone, no demolition action was taken on khasra no.
30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
Page 1 of 23. According to records of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone, no demolition action was taken on khasra no. 30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
4. According to records of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone, no demolition action was taken on khasra no. 30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
5. According to records of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone, no demolition action was taken on khasra no. 30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
6. According to records of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone, no demolition action was taken on khasra no. 30/23/1 dated 21/10/09.
7. No information is available in the record of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone.
8. No information is available in the record of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone.
9. No proceedings are done against the demolish according to the record of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone.
10. This is clarification. No information is sought.
11. This is clarification. No information is sought.
12. No proceedings are done against the demolish according to the record of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone.
13. No proceedings are done against the demolish according to the record of Zonal Department, Civil Line Zone.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
False information was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"PIO is directed to give all possible assistance in inspection of records and procuring photocopies of records/documents".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
"Incomplete and unsatisfactory information was provided to the appellant by the PIO".
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Surendra Singh, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;
The Respondent states that the Appellant had not turned up for inspection which was offered to him. He states that the information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant. The diary register with respect to the Appellant's complaint has been located by the PIO and he is given it to the Commission. The Commission is attaching it with the order and sending it to the Appellant in case he finds it useful.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available appears to have been provided. 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 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2