Central Information Commission
Mr.Pradeep Narayan vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2012/000049/17593
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2012/000049
Relevant Facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Pradeep Narayan, C/o Praveen Agrawal
Advocate B-9, Basement,
Vikram Nagar,
Firoz Shah Kotla Kila,
New Delhi 110002
Respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar
Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Land & Estate Department,
7th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
J.L. Nehru Marg, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 29/12/2011
Complaint filed on : 24/01/2011
Information sought:
1. Whether you have permitted any new construction, near Vegetable shop of Mother Dairy, D.D.A. Market, opposite Samachar Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase -- I Extension, Delhi --91.
2. If the reply to Query No. 1 is 'No', are you aware of any new construction being carried out in the said market during the last 3 years.
3. Are you aware of any new construction near Vegetable shop of Mother Dairy, D.D.A. Market, opposite Samachar Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase -- I Extension, Delhi -- 91, wherein a shop in the name and style of"
J S Properties" is being operated.
4. If the reply to query no. 1 is "Yes', Please provide me the following details of the shops permitted to be constructed in the above-mentioned market.
5. The details of the shop encompasses the following I. Name, Fathers Name, and address of the person to whom the shop has been allotted. II. The shop number allotted to them as per your record.
III. Area of the shop allotted to them.
N. Purpose for which the shop has been allotted.
V. The map of the allotted shop together with dimensions.
6. When was the last inspection done by you of the above- mentioned market, to verify that the terms of the lease (including no new construction has been carried out) are being complied with.
7. If the answer to the question no. 6 is Yes, please provide us the inspection report of the last inspection undertaken by the concerned officials of the above-mentioned market? Please also provide the name, designation and address of the last inspecting officer.
8. Whether there was any unauthorized construction or any other violation found committed by the any of the shopkeeper with regards to the terms of allotment as per the last inspection report?
9. Is there any fixed period after which physical inspection is carried out. If, yes, kindly provide me the duration and the dates of last 5 inspection done in the above-mentioned market.
PIO's reply:
CPIO returned the IPO stating that it should have been addressed to Commissioner , MCD .Information will be provided only when the postal order addressed in favor of commissioner MCD is provided with.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Mr. Pradeep Narayan;
Respondent: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner;
The Complainant has asked for information and attached an IPO of Rs.10/- favourign Accounts Officer, MCD. The Complainant had followed provision-3 of the Central Rules of the RTI Act which states that, "A request for obtaining information under subsection (1) of Section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque payable to the Accounts officer of the Public authority."
The Respondent states that there is no account of the Accounts officer MCD and therefore the practice is to accept all the payments in the name of Commissioner, MCD. It had personally discussed this matter with the Commissioner of MCD two years back and pointed out that since the rules mention that payments shall be made to Accounts Officer of the Public Authority MCD must accept these. Despite these it appears that MCD has decided not to follow laws and rules but to follow its own arbitrary practices. The Complainant has been unnecessarily harassed by MCD no following the rules as defined by the Government of India but insisting that it would follow the practice of its own choice.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.
In view of this the Commission under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act directs MCD to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing this matter and the delay in getting the information.
Decision:
The complaint is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Complainant before 25 March 2012.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.3000/- as compensation is sent to the Complainant before 30 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 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2