Central Information Commission
Manmohan Tuli vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 26 April, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/146233
CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/146234
Shri Manmohan Tuli ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/E. E. -(Bldg.-I)/South Zone, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Building Department
2. PIO/ E.E.-(M-I)/South Zone, SDMC
3. PIO/ Senior Town Planner-HQ & PIO,
SDMC, Town Planning Department
4. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/South Zone,
SDMC
Date of Hearing : 26.04.2019
Date of Decision : 26.04.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
146233 08.02.2017 06.03.2017 14.03.2017 20.04.2017
146234 05.02.2017 08.03.2017 14.03.2017 20.04.2017
CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/146233
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2017, seeking information on nine points regarding Barricading of service lanes by the Residents. He sought name and designation of the officer who/ ordered the removal of gates fixed by the residents 25 & 32 and other related information.PIO/ Office In charge (Bldg.), South Zone vide letter dated 06.06.2017 provide information to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated Page 1 of 4 14.03.2017 Superintending Engineer-I, FAA South Zone vide order dated 20.04.2017 stated as follows:-
"The information furnished by both the PIOs is unsatisfactory and inadequate. They are directed to provide, within fifteen days, revised information/reply to the appellant as discussed during the course of the hearing. The information is to be provided as per the provisions of Section 7(6) of the Act".
In compliance of FAO, PIO/ EE(M-I), South Zone vide letter dated 05.05.2017 provide the revised reply for the Appellant. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with instant Second Appeal.
CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/146234 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.02.2017, seeking information regarding encroachment on public land by covering as Nalla/drain by building a wall covering 1ft wide X 20ft long area on eleven points which is as follows:-
1. Provide the name and designation of the officers who are responsible to procure documents/physical possession of the properties transferred by the DDA/Delhi Admn to MCD.
2. Provide the date, name and address of the officers/departments who took possession of the Neeti Bagh, DDA colony from DDA in the year 1989 of its notification or thereafter.
3. Reason for not taking the possession, in case it has not yet been procured, by the department. Have those departments made any efforts to procure the same, and if not the reasons for not doing so?
4. Provide the name and designation of the officer of the S-MCD who handled the complaint filed by Sd RP Singh, with public grievances commission New Delhi and other related information.
Shri Rajeev Kumar, Office In charge (Bldg.) South Zone vide letter dated 08.03.2017 provided available information and also transferred application to the concerned department. Another reply of PIO/ RTI Clerk (Bldg.)/HQ, South DMC vide letter dated 24.04.2017 has already transferred the application on point No. 4(a) to PIO/EE(B-I), South Zone. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant Page 2 of 4 filed the First Appeal dated 14.03.2017. Superintending Engineer-I, South Zone, FAA vide order dated 20.04.2017 stated as follows:
"The information furnished by both the PIOs is unsatisfactory and inadequate. They are directed to provide, within fifteen days, revised information/reply to the appellant as discussed during the course of the hearing. The information is to be provided as per the provisions of Section 7(6) of the Act".
In compliance of FAO, PIO/ EE(M-I), South Zone vide letter dated 05.05.2017 provide the revised reply for the Appellant. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant is absent despite service of notice of hearing. The PIO submits that there were certain cross complaints made by the Appellant and one Shri R.P. Singh. The PIO submits that the complaints received by SDMC were acted upon and demolition action was undertaken. The PIO states that the Appellant had instituted an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal MCD and it has been noticed through an order dated 02.11.2017 passed by ATMCD that the Appellant expired on 30.10.2017. A copy of the order dated 02.11.2017 is placed on record. Upon a query by the Commission, the PIO submits that the LRs of the deceased Appellant are pursuing the proceedings before the ATMCD.
Decision:
In light of the peculiar circumstances of the cases in hand, the Commission notwithstanding the death of the Appellant, directs the PIO to offer inspection of the complete records relating to the case to the LRs of the Appellant. The LRs of the Appellant shall be entitled to inspect the records and take certified extracts therefrom free of cost upto 100 pages. The LRs of the Appellant may approach the PIO for inspection on any working day within 5 weeks after prior intimation.
The Appeals are disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy Page 3 of 4 (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4