Central Information Commission
Mr.C P Bhartiya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 11 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001836/14021
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001836
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. C.P. Bhartiya
A-170, Press Building, IInd Floor,
Keshav Marg, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
Respondent : Mr. K. P. Singh
PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o Suptdg. Engineer (C)-I, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024.
RTI application filed on : 11/04/2011 PIO replied : 16/05/2011 First appeal filed on : Not enclosed First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2011 Second Appeal received on : 11/07/2011
The Appellant is seeking following information with regard to several properties in Sriniwaspuri, Amar Colony, Greater Kailash-I, Kailash Colony, Kalkaji, Govindpuri, Lajpat Nagar, Vinod Puri, Defence Colony:-
SL. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Any construction work is being carried out in the Information sought by the applicant through this point is said property and whether the same is illegal or legal. not available with this office in compiled/material form.
However, information with regard to booking of unauthorized construction and building plan, sanctioned by this office is available on the web site of MCD i.e. www.mcdonline.qov.in, Link of the said web site is-go to MCD website i.e. ww.mcdonline.gov.in than go to Engineering, and than go to MIS, and applicant can find the information
2. If the stated property is authorized then sent the Requisite information is not available with this office on certified copy of building map. record. However, details of web site having information about building plan sanctioned by this office has given at (1) above. Copies of the requisite sanctioned building plans, if any, cannot be provided to the applicant being third party involvement. Moreover, sanctioned building plan is a personal property of the owner as well of the qualified / licensed/ approved architect prepared, based upon his expert knowledge & skills, for which he charges from his clients. Hence, supplying copy of the same is a violation of section 8 (e) and 8(d) of the RTI Act.
3. If the stated property is authorized, then is the Requisite information is not available with this office in construction done under building by-laws of the compiled / material form. However, applicant can construction Deptt.? If no, then why the authority inspect relevant available record with regard to action did not take any action against them? taken against unauthorized construction in this office on any working day at 11.00 am, with prior intimation in this regard. as per provisions of RTI Act-2005
4. If the stated property is unauthorized then, why any Not applicable in view of (3) above action is not taken against them?
5. If any type of action was taken regarding the As at(3)above property, then give the proper details within 15 days.
6. If apart from the above stated property, the -do-
department had taken any action against all the unauthorized constructions in whole Greater Kailsah- I, during the past 6 months, provide details with address.
7. It must be stated that if the departmental action was -do-
being taken during the period of past 1 year in areas- Sriniwaspuri, Amar Colony, Greater Kailash-I, Kailash Colony, Kalkaji, Govindpuri, Lajpat Nagar, Vinod Puri, Defence Colony, etc. Give proper details including concern address.
8. If any new construction is done even after the Requisite information is not available with this office in departmental action? material form.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Not enclosed Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"Appeal was heard in detail. Appellant was not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO. Representative of PIO informed that the information sought by the appellant is very voluminous and not available in compiled form. He further stated that appellant has already been informed that the information sought is available on MCD's website and can be accessed as per the link provided in the reply of PIO. However, for convenience of the appellant, PIO is directed to provide him the relevant record for inspection on 24.06.2011 at 11.00 AM. Appellant has also been informed during the hearing in this regard."
Grounds for Second Appeal Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. C.P. Bhartiya;
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Nodal officer RTI on behalf of Mr. K. P. Singh, PIO & SE-I;
The Appellant has done an inspection of the relevant records as admitted by him. He identified the records for which he wanted photocopies which have also been supplied to him. The Appellant states now that he wants more records and inspection again. This does not appear to be correct since in the earlier inspection he has given a letter which does not appear to show any dissatisfaction.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
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 11 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (JS))