Central Information Commission
Mr.Dwarka Nath Kharbanda vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 December, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002887/16547
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002887
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Sh. Dwarka Nath Kharbanda
R/o: 1672, Main Bazar,
Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055.
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o The Superintending Engineer, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone, Idgah Road, Delhi - 110006.
RTI application filed on : 11-04-2011 PIO replied : 17-06-2011 First appeal filed on : 04-07-2011 First Appellate Authority order : 28-07-2011 Second Appeal received on : 04-10-2011 Information Sought:
1. List of all the occupiers/tenants/owners occupying individually all these about 30 sub-properties as per the last MCD survey as and when it was conducted giving date of such survey for House Tax Records in MCD?
2. Total number and name of all those occupiers/tenants/owners to whom the above noted letter/notice have been issued by MCD, SPZ.
3. Mode of issuance of the above letter/notices i.e., by ordinary post/UPC/Speed post/Regd.Letter/Messenger?
4. In case issued through Messenger, name and designation of the messenger and also name and designation of the official who has deputed the messenger? Did messenger obtained the signature to whom he has issued/handed over the notices giving documentary evidence?
5. List of the occupiers who were required to be issued this notice as per MCD Survey Report and the content of noting portion of the file on which the decision for issuance of notices was issued?
6. I have received both the above notices on 16-12-2010 and replied on 20-12-2010. The action having been taken on my reply have been dealt.
7. Copy of MCD structural Engineering Department's experts report declaring 1669-72, Barahi Mata Mandir as dangerous? Name and designation of Experts and date on which the survey was conducted?
8. Copy of the Demolition order passed by MCD and name and designation of the competent authority who has passed these orders?
9. Name and designation of the whole team who have come for demolition on 30-12-2010?
10. MCD has sent a Demand notice no. D-162/AE/B/SPZ/09 dated 14.05.2010 (copy enclosed) amounting Rs.5250/-. Has this amount been received by MCD? If yes, from whom? If not, the details of efforts having been made by MCD to realize this amount in the last 10 months giving name and designation of the official responsible for this recovery.
11. A telegram (copy enclosed) was sent to DC, SPZ on 30-12-2010, the action having been taken giving documentary evidence and file noting thereof.
Page 1 of 312. Complaint dated 01-12-2010 (copy enclosed) was sent to MCD for un-authorized and illegal construction. Has MCD filed FIR with P.S., Pahar Ganj? Copy of FIR or any other letter sent to police in this regard be supplied.
13. As per enclosed news report Hindustan Times dated 18th March, 2011 where by Inderjit Singh, Executive Engineer has been suspended alongwith other officials, supply the copy of suspension order in respect of Shri Inderjit Singh.
14. Detail of disciplinary/vigilance action pending in respect of Sh.S.R. Lakhan, Asstt. Engineer, during his stay at SPZ along with the charges levied be supplied to me, if any?
15. As per sl. No. 07 of enclosed letter, MCD has to realize Rs.10500/- from Occupier/Builder in r/o demolition charges of un-authorized construction. The details of efforts having made by MCD for realizing this amount since 15-07-2009 be apprised.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. Information sought by the applicant through this point is pertain to House Tax Department.
2. Information sought by the application through this point is that notice have been issued by Department in the name of owner/occupier.
3. Information sought by the application through this point is that notice has been served by the then J.E. (Bldg.).
4. Information sought by the application through this point is not applicable in view of above (3).
5. Information sought by the application through this point is that the notice has been issued by department in the same of owner/occupier. Rest part of the information is that no such information is available in this office.
6. Information sought by the application through this point is that the reply of the above said notices has been marked to the then J.E. (Bldg.) for necessary action.
7. Information sought by the application through this point is that no structural engineering department experts available with this office.
8. Information sought by the application through this point is that no demolition order was passed from this office in reference to letter no. D-818/EE/B/SPZ/10 dt 10.12.2010 u/s 348 D/917/AE/B/SPZ u/s 349 dt. 10.12.2010, these letters are notice under section 348 and 349 letters not demolition order.
9. Information sought by the application through this point is that learn come for demolition is concerned JE along with demolition squad of SP Zone,
10. Information sought by the application through this point is that no amount has been received by MCD. Rest part of the information no such information is available with this office.
11. No specific information sought by the applicant through this point.
12. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that no FIR has been filed with P.S. Pahar Ganj.
13. Information sought by the application through this point is that copy of the suspension order is attached.
14. Information sought by the application through this point is pertains to Vigilance Department.
15. Information sought by the application through this point is not applicable as on serial no.07, applicant has sought the copy of MCD Structural Engineering Department Experts.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
During the hearing on 27.07.2011, the appellant stated that the reply given to his queries is not specific rather the general and evasive reply has been given. I have gone through the contents of the application to which the information is sought and also gone through the reply given by the department. Although the reply has been given to most of the information, yet it is very generalistic and the information regarding specific queries has not been provided.
PIO is directed that necessary question wise specific information or reply be provided exactly in the similar format as has been sought. Information, if not available with the department. Further, as requested by the appellant, the names of the officers, who signed the information provided, may also be clearly Page 2 of 3 indicated in the reply. The specific information as ordered be supplied to the appellant within 10 working days positively.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Aggarwal, AE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, Public Information Officer & SE;
The respondent claims that information was sent to the Appellant as per the order of the FAA but has no evidence to show that any information was sent to the appellant after the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The respondent is directed to send the complete information as per the order of the FAA point-wise. In case any information is not available with the respondent he will obtain from any other officer in MCD and send to the Appellant. The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 10 January 2012.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 23 January 2012 at 12.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.
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 23 December 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE Page 3 of 3