Central Information Commission
G. K. Ahuja vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 19 May, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/153479
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/139688
Shri G.K. Ahuja ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO E.E. (Bldg. - I)/South Zone, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Green Park, New Delhi - 110016
Through: Sh. Rajeev Kumar Singh
Date of Hearing : 18.05.2020
Date of Decision : 19.05.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case RTI Filed CPIO First FAO's order Second
Nos. on reply's Appeals Appeals
dated
153479 30.04.2019 13.06.2019 08.07.2019 07.08.2019 04.11.2019
139688 16.01.2018 13.03.2018 02.04.2018 19.04.2018 22.06.2018
CIC/SDMCS/A/2019/153479
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 30.04.2019 for sought information on the followingtwo points:
1. The progress of Action Taken on my application dated 25.03.2018 followed by reminders dated 21.06.2018, 27.07.2018 and 19.02.2019 (Copies Enclosed) regarding Regularisation of Construction in r/o property No. 776B Chiragh Delhi (Less than 32 Sq.)
2. Copy of order/processing sheet of relevant file of my application dt 25.03.2018 if any.
(Queries are Verbatim) The PIO/EE (Bldg)-I,furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 13.06.2019, informing that:
"..As reported by JE concerned that though only simple application for regularisation has been received by there cannot be considered as the applicant is required to apply through registered each of SDMC with completed drawings/documents/certificated as per building by laws and master plan 2021."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.07.2019. The FAA vide order dated 07.08.2019 held as follows "...The appeal is allowed as the information provided seems to be inadequate. The respondent is directed to furnish to the appellant, within fifteen days, modified reply/information mentioning therein the complete procedure for regularization of construction for the property in question. He is also directed to supply copy of complete regularization file of the property. The entire information is to be provided as per Section 7(6) of the said Act.".
In compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO/EE (Bldg)-I, vide communication dated 27.09.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant referring to clause 2.27 of Unified Building Bye Laws for the purpose of regularization stated that the applicant is required to submit file for the same through a registered architect alongwith requisite documents, annexing copies of supporting documents therewith.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/139688 The Appellant filed his RTI application dated 16.01.2018 and sought information on six points, inter alia;
1. What action was taken on my application dated 24.03.2017 seeking permission to repair old house.
2. What action taken on my Second application dated 15.06.2017 asking for any further requirement/deficiency in the application dated 24.03.2017.
3. What action has been taken on my reply to show cause notice dated 01.08.2017
4. If my property is booked as unauthorised construction, reasons thereof be given.
5. If no, then the permission/requirements for granting permission to repair/reconstruct from ground floor to third floor be given.
(Queries are Verbatim) The PIO/EE (Bldg)-I, furnished a point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 13.03.2018, providing: a) copy/s of diary register/s wherein the Appellant's complaints dated 24.03.2017 and 15.06.2017 were diarized; and
b) copy of the U/C file pertaining to the booking of the property on 21.07.2017, for unauthorized construction etc. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 02.04.2018. The FAA vide order dated 19.04.2018 stated as follows "...The appeal is allowed. Though information seems to have been provided, PIO, however is directed to provide to the appellant, within fifteen days, latest updated specific information regarding action taken on appellant's letter/reply to show cause notice with respect to permission to repair of the property in question.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied on non-compliance of FAA's order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to promote social distancing in the wake of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, hearing is conducted through audio conference and both parties are present through audio conference.
Since both the aforementioned cases deal with the same subject matter, hence they are disposed off by a common order. Appellant states that he had filed an application informing the SDMC about the repair/construction he wanted to undertake on his property and on non-receipt of any reply, he started the repair work. Subsequently, SDMC declared his premises as unauthorised, stopped the repair work and initiated restrictive action against his property. The appellant even sought regularisation of the property and is aggrieved by non response of the respondent to the same. The appellant contended that the work stoppage in his property by SDMC was discriminatory and wholly incorrect and seeks that he should be exempted from the payment of penalty for regularisation of the property, since he had already informed SDMC, prior to carrying out the repair, as per the provisions of the DMC Act.
Respondent states that the application for regularisation should have been sent by the appellant in a specified format whereas the appellant had intimated on a plain paper; relevant copies of the bye-laws were provided to the appellant subsequently. While the appellant places reliance on the DMC Act averring that he had followed the provisions of law and intimated three months in advance before starting the construction/repair of the property, respondent avers that the appellant has not followed the provisions of the Bye-Laws, which attracted the action of work stoppage.
Decision After hearing averments of parties during the course of hearing, it has become clear that the dispute in this case has arisen due to different interpretation of the provisions of law by the parties. While Appellant is prepared to furnish the requisite documents and fees for regularizing the construction and for lifting the work stoppage order, he seeks that the restraint order on the repair work be lifted and the penalty for regularizing the property be waived in his case. Respondent offers to assist him in addressing the matter.
The case essentially deals with grievance redressal of the appellant and interpretation of the DMC Act and Bye-laws, neither of which can be adjudicated under the RTI Act. It is further noted that the directions passed by the FAA vide order dated 19.04.2018 have not been complied as yet.
Under the circumstances, the Commission deems it appropriate that the matter be remanded to FAA/SE-I, South DMC, South Zone, Green Park-Sh. Anil Tyagi, to hear the appellant and ensure that his grievance is redressed, in terms of provisions of the law, and decide the matter with a reasoned speaking order. Sh. Rajeev Singh present during the hearing is directed to submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within three weeks of lifting of the lockdown.
The aforementioned appeals are thus disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514