Central Information Commission
Mr.Dharam Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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/2012/000321/17763
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000321
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Dharam Singh
R/o: C-8, Sanwal Nagar,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi - 110049.
Respondent : Mr. Ranbir Singh
Public Information Officer & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o The Superintending Engineer(c)-II, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024.
RTI application filed on : 29/09/2011
PIO replied : 11/11/2011
First appeal filed on : 23/11/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 15/11/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/01/2012
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether MCD has taken /shot photographs, Requisite copy of photographs of the demolition
picture and video in connection with the actions carried out by this office on 2 & 5
demolition of property No. C-8 Sanwal Nagar, August 2011 are not available on the record of
New Delhi on 2nd and 5th August, 2011? If yes this office.
kindly provide the photographs and video CD
which were shot on the day of demolition i.e. on
2nd and 5th August 2011.
2. Is it correct that vide order dated 03.03.2009 in What is sought by the applicant through this
writ Petition (C ) 7583 / 2008 titled as Smt. point is not information as per section 2(f) of the
Sugani Devi V/s MCD & Ors, Hon'ble High RTI Act-2005, as information sought is in the
Court of Delhi had referred the matter to the form of only such information can be provided
Nodal Steering Committee regarding grievance to
of Smt. Sugani Devi with regard to unauthorized the applicant which is available with the
construction carried out in the property referred department in a material form of question
above? (interrogatory). A PIO cannot be expected to
answer such queries, answers to which could
never be in a material form.
3. Is it also correct that respondent therein had filed What is sought by the applicant through first number of representations / complaints between part of this point is not information as per the period from Dec. 2008 to June, 2009 to. section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005, as information MCD as well as to the Nodal Steering Committee sought is in the form of only such information and same were handled by Central Zone, MCD? can be provided to If yes kindly provide the entire relevant file on the applicant which is available with the this issue for inspection. department in a material form of question (interrogatory). A PIO cannot be expected to Page 1 of 3 answer such queries, answers to which could never be in a material form. Applicant can inspect relevant available record in this office at 11.00 a.m. with prior intimation in this regard.
4. The owners of the properties referred in the writ As per record, no action is found taken by this including applicant had given complaints dated office on the complaints dated 13-1-2009 and 13.01.2009 and 29.01.2009 addressed to Sh. S.K. 29-1-2001 against P.No.C-l1, Sanwal Nagar, Midha, Deputy Commissioner (CZ), and New Delhi. Reasons for not taken actions on the Executive Engineer (Building), Central Zone, complaint are not available on the record of this MCD regarding unauthorized construction in office. property No. C-8 Sanwal Nagar, New Delhi.
Whether any action had been taken on the said representation. Kindly intimate action taken on said representation with supporting documents like report of inquiry officer, noting portion & correspondence of file, remarks & comments of the higher officers etc. if no reason may also be furnished with documentary proof.
5. Whether the facts given in the said complaints Requisite information is not available with this dated 13.01.2009 & 29.01.2009 came to the office on record. knowledge of competent authority of MCD before or after de-sealing the property No. C-8 Sanwal Nagar, New Delhi. If yes when? Kindly give the supporting document.
6. Is it duty of MCD to check the construction What is sought by the applicant through first status of the property under their jurisdiction ? If part of this point is not information as per yes, who is the responsible officer. section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005, as information sought is in the form of only such information can be provided to the applicant which is available with the department in a material form of question (interrogatory). A PIO cannot be expected to answer such queries, answers to which could never be in a material form. It is further informed that Sh. Kushant, JE is assigned the duties to monitor building activities in the area of Sanwal Nagar, New Delhi.
7. The new owners of Sanwal Nagar including What is sought by the applicant through first applicant had filed a complaints dated 13.01.2009 part of this point is not information as per and 29.01.2009 regarding illegal construction in section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005, as information properties situated in the areas of Sanwal Nagar, sought is in the form of only such information is it the duty of MCD to bring it on record. If yes, can be provided to the applicant which is how many floors have been constructed on the available with the department in a material form properties referred in the complaints dated of question (interrogatory). A PIO cannot be 13.01.2009 and 29.01.2009 as on date? expected to answer such queries, answers to which could never be in a material form. Rest of the information is not available with this office on record.
8. It came to my notice that Mr. Mehboob has been Applicant can inspect relevant file in this office transferred from ward no.159 or area sanwal on any working day at 11.00 with prior nagar. Kindly provide the relevant file for intimation in this regard, in which area of inspection. Sanwal Nagar has been transferred from Sh.
Mehboob, JE to Sh. Kushant, JE.
Page 2 of 3Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was received by the PIO within time period.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"After inquiry, the information available has been sent to you vide letter No. D/SE(C)- II/EE(B)/APIO/CNZ/2011/712/RTI dated 11.11.2011".
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
"No information was received within time period from PIO & during the period of filing first appeal, PIO gave vague & wrong reply".
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Dharam Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, NO(RTI) on behalf of Mr. Ranbir Singh Public Information Officer & SE-II and Mr. P. K. Rastogi, AE;
The PIO has given most of the information but with respect to query-1 the PIO has stated that photographs/video of the demolition action are not available. The appellant states that he wants to know whether photographs/video of demolition action has been taken. The PIO is directed to give this information to the Appellant in writing.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 05 April 2012.
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 19 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3