Central Information Commission
Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Mcd on 15 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002144
Date of Hearing : 23.08.2017
Date of Decision : 25.09.2017
Date of Hearing (Show Cause) : 27.09.2018
Date of Decision (Show Cause) : 30.09.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Prem Prakash Prajapati
Respondent : PIO /Ex.Eng.(Bldg(, Narela Zone
North DMC
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2015
PIO replied on : 08.10.2015
First Appeal filed on : 07.11.2015
First Appellate Order on : 17.02.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 27.07.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.07.2017, the appellant sought copy of document issued by MCD wherein it is mentioned that sanction of building plan is mandatory to rebuild an old house situated in village abadi (Lal dora) and also sought a copy of layout plan of Khampur Village, Delhi. CPIO vide letter dated 08.10.2015 advised the appellant to check MPD-20121 and Building Bye LawS. Being dissatisfied on the response, the appellant filed an appeal on 07.11.2015. The FAA vide order dated 17.02.2016 directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of orders issued by the competent authority mentioning the sanction of Building Plan is mandatory to rebuild the house in Lal Dora. Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present. The Appellant states that MCD insists on building plan sanction prior to commencement of house building activity even Page 1 of 4 in Lal Dora revenue areas. He question the very policy of MCD to regulate the building activity in lal dora areas in Delhi, which admittedly are thickly populated areas having no record of land holding. In this context, the appellant sought to know the policy of MCD. Per contra, the respondent states that the Master Plan for Delhi doesn't differentiate between Lal Dora land and the non lal dora land. He states that the policy in this regard is clear. The PIO places a copy of MCD circular No. TP/G/3426/11 dated 28.09.2011 which lays criteria w.r.t. sanctioning of building plans in Lal dora areas within Delhi. The same is taken on record. Upon a query from the Commission as to why a copy of the said circular was not made available to the Appellant at the time of replying to his RTI application, the PIO states that the said circular has been made available to the Appellant in compliance of the FAO.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that information sought has been furnished albeit with avoidable delay. The compliance of FAO dated 17.02.2016 has been made by the PIO on 24.07.2017. The delay occasioned is not explained by the PIO. The recently made compliance is a delayed & botched attempt to keep penalty proceedings at bay, which does not absolve the then PIO from his liability.
The registry is directed to issue Show cause notice for maximum penalty to the then PIO who did not comply with the FAO dated 17.02.2016. Notice shall be served upon the noticee through the FAA as well as PIO. Reply, if any must reach the Commission by 16.11.2017. Show cause hearing, if deemed necessary shall be scheduled in due course.
************************************************************************************* PENALTY PROCEEDIGS UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE RTI ACT 2005 In terms of the order dated 25.09.2017, a show cause notice was issued and the noticee submitted a reply to the notice refuting any dereliction of duty on his part. Relevant part of the reply reads as:
Whereas the Hon'ble Commission vide its order dated 11.09.2018 directed the then PIO/ EE (B)i Narela Zone to be present before the Hon'ble Commission on 27.09.18 at 1.00 PM to explain their position in the matter, in this regard it my humble submission that I am presently working as Executive Engineer (BHQ) Civic Centre/ NDMC, I have highest regard to this Hon'ble Commission and I ensured always sincere and duty bound to reply on time of the RTI matters. In the instant case the FAA/SE Narela Zone conducted hearing on 22.01.2016 Page 2 of 4 and passed a order/ decision vide No, FM/SE/NRZRTI/2016/D-394 dated 17.02.2016 and directed PIO to provide the photo copy of the orders of the competent authority mentioning the sanction of the building plan is mandatory to rebuilt the houses in lal dora within 10 days to the applicant. That as per record Sh. Vimal Bhandari APIO/A- E(B) was attend the hearing of FAA on 22.01.16 but he had not complied the order of the FAA and failed to provide the copy of the documents as directed by the FAA, The order of FAA dt, 17,02.16 was communicated to APIO/AE(B) Sh, Vimal Bhandari on 29'02.16 by the Nodal Office(RTl) Sh, Sriniwas (AE), who received it on 24.02,16 as I was on leave from 18.02.16 to 22.02.16 even then the said order was not complied by Sh. Vimal Bhandari AE(B).
That I was looking after the charge of EE (P) Project Division of Narela Zone in addition to my own duties w,e.f. 01 .0:2,16 after superannuation of Sh, B,B. Jaiswal EE(P) Narela Zone and due to the work pressure of completing the project works and financial liabilities and closing of current financial year in the month of march 2016, I inadvertently not monitored the said RTI case and non-compliance of APIO Sh, Vimal Bhandari AE(B), That I was transferred from building department Narela Zone vide Order No, DA/Eng./HCVNDMC/2016/692 dated 23.02.2016 and Sh, A, K. Dhahiya was joined the building department as EE(B) Narela Zone on 03.03.2016. In view of the above I am apologize for the act of non compliance and further assure this Hon'ble Commission that I will be more careful in future while disposing of RTI matters. It is my humble request to this Hon'ble Commission that this case may kindly be closed.
Submitted please.
The noticee Shri B.S. Meena is present and heard. In addition to the explanation already submitted on record, the noticee submits that the information sought by appellant ie. the requirement of obtaining municipal sanction before construction in lal dora abadi areas was already placed in public domain. He submits that the same is part of MPD 2021 document. It is submitted by him that the decision of the Commission has been complied with and requisite information has been furnished to the appellant. Copy brought on record. The noticee further tendered unqualified apology for inconvenience caused to the appellant as well as the Commission.
The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.
Page 3 of 4(03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
In view of the totality of facts on record, the Commission finds no reason to disbelieve the noticee. His explanation is accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the noticee acted malafidely. Taking a lenient view, the Commission drops the penalty proceedings. Noticee stands discharged.
(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 Page 4 of 4