Central Information Commission
Ram Lal Jain vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 19 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BABA GANGNTH MARG, MUNIRKA
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/173512
Date of Hearing : 17.04.2018
Date of Decision : 17.04.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Ram Lal Jain
Respondent : PIO/Administrative Officer-
Engg(HQ), South Delhi Municipal
Corporation
2. PIO/Asst. Commissioner/West
Zone, SDMC
3. PIO/ EE-(Bldg.-II)/West Zone,
SDMC
4. PIO/Asst. Commissioner,
South Zone, SDMC, Zonal Office
Building
5.PIO/ Asst. Commissioner/
Central Zone, SDMC
6. PIO/ Asst. Commissioner/
Najafgarh, SDMC
Through:
Shri Rakesh Kumar, EE/PIO
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.03.2016
PIO replied on : 17.03.2016
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2016
First Appellate Order on : 29.06.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 09.09.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 02.01.2017, the appellant sought information as under:-
"There are several properties in the un-authorized colonies the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, which were sealed due to un-authorized construction. Out of those, some of the properties have been de-sealed vide circular no.- D/85/ADDL. CM(ENGGO/BLDG-HQ/SDMC/2015. Provide the following information:-
1. What kind of renovation work can be performed in the de-sealed property?
2. Can interior/exterior decoration, flooring or paint be allowed after de- sealing of such properties?
3. Can the repair work be undertaken without doing any new - construction in the de-sealed property?
Shri Arun Kumar, PIO/Administrative Officer, Engg. Department (HQ)/SDMC have transferred the RTI application under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act- 2005 for further necessary action to the concerned departments which are as under:-
1. PIO/AC/West Zone
2. PIO/AC/South Zone
3. PIO/AC/CNZ
4. PIO/AC/NGZ
5. PIO/EE (Bldg. HQ-II/SDMC The appellant filed first appeal dated 16.05.2016. The Superintending. Engineer-II/WZ/FAA disposed off the appeal vide order dated 29.06.2016 stated as follows:-
"The reply given by the PIO is not satisfactory. PIO is directed to give modified and specific reply to the appellant within a period of „10‟ days."
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant states that he wanted to know the permissible works which could be carried out in a de-sealed property. He states that the information sought was basic in nature; however, the same was not furnished to him despite the direction of FAO. Per contra, the respondent states that the RTI application in question was transferred to SDMC Hq. Upon a query, he apprises the Commission that the appellant had sought information regarding an unauthorized colony wherein any construction activity is unlawful per se. The PIO clarifies that the query itself is hypothetical since while construction activity in unauthorized colony is unlawful, the permissibility of carrying out repair/renovation at any such site with sanction of SDMC is also a hypothetical proposition.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that though issue has been clarified in course of hearing by the PIO, however, the same in form of a clear reply was not furnished to the appellant. The Commission regretfully notes that the FAA despite being a senior officer of the department and thus fully conversant with the issue at hand did not adjudicate the first appeal on merits.
The PIO, (B) Hq, SDMC is directed to furnish a clear and authoritative reply to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(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.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer