Central Information Commission
Mr.Tribhuvan Poddar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001392/13398
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001392
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Tribhuvan Poddar,
H. No. 15, Lane No. 1,
Sarojini Naidu Park,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi- 31.
Respondent : Public Information Officer & SE-I
Building Department,
MCD (Shahdara South Zone),
Karkardooma, Zonal Building,
Shahdara, Delhi- 110032.
RTI application filed on : 08/03/2011
PIO replied : no reply.
First appeal filed on : 12/05/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 18/05/2011
Second Appeal received on : 24/05/2011
Information soughtby the appellant:
1) Kindly state that for the approval map has been passed for how many newly-constructed buildings and how many building-constructors have obtained the permission from the Building Department for such constructions during July'2010 to 28th February'2011 in Ward Geeta Colony under Shahdara South Zone ?
2) How much information does the Building Department has about the illegal construction in Ward Geeta Colony? What action has been taken by the officials till date to curb such illegal construction?
3) How many buildings are there in Ward Geeta Colony on which the actions have been taken by the officials of the Building Department? Have the owners of the buildings constructed the buildings as per the conditions of the Building Department?
4) In Ward Geeta Colony, building mafias are very active. The buildings are being made 4-storeyed or 5-storeyed and the balconies are being made so that they protrude 3-4 feet's on the roads and the lanes.
As per the Building conditions/rules, how much protrusion is allowed? Also, in what height what sized balcony can be made and the staircase/ platform can be built in lanes?
5) As per the knowledge of the Building Department, how many parking/ basements have been built during March'2010 to February'2011?
6) Which S.E./ J.E. and Patwari was in charge of Ward Geeta Colony in Shahdara South Zone during March'2010 to February'2011? Kindly provide their names, designations, and the duration of their being in charge. Also, specify the names of the building-owners and the full address of the buildings against which the actions were taken.
7) As per the conditions of the building department, how many floors can be raised on the land of 25yards, 50 yards, 100 yards and 200 yards? Is the width of roads and loans also made a criteria for deciding what storey building can be raised?
8) Sikandar Rai Puri S'o Mendhu Rai in his H. No. 102, New Lahore Shastri Nagar (Near Shikkali Mandir, Sarojini Naidu Park, Shastri Nagar) Ward Geeta Colony, has carried out the construction work without using the pillar and column, and only lenter in his old house. The walls and the lanter are in a dilapidated condition and might collapse anytime. What has the Building Department done in this regard? Construction has been carried on a dilapidated old house. - Who are the Officials responsible for the same? Kindly furnish their names and designations.
Reply of the PIO:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the First Appeal:
No reply of the PIO within 30 days.
Order of the FAA:
"The Appellant appeared for hearing and stated that he has not received any information in respect of his application. The PIO/SE-I is directed to provide the required information to the Appellant within a week's time positively under intimation to this office."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
By not furnishing any information, both the PIO and the FAA have tried to mislead the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Tribhuvan Poddar;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant states that he has received no information from the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs PIO/SE-I to provide the complete information as per available records to the Appellant before 30 July 2011.
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 information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. 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 10 August 2011 at 02.30pm 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.
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 12 July 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SB)