Central Information Commission
Jagriti Jain vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation City ... on 14 August, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCC/A/2018/161149
Ms. Jagriti Jain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,North DMC, Keshav Puram, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi - 110035
Through: Sh. Sunil Kumar - AE(B-II)
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2020
Date of Decision : 14.08.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.03.2018
PIO replied on : 30.07.2018
First Appeal filed on : 06.08.2018
First Appellate Order on : 10.09.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 08.11.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 27.03.2018 pertaining to her representation seeking demolition of unauthorised construction on 3rd floor of property no. A-6/7, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi occupied by Mr. Jagjit Singh and his family(referred to as "addressee"). The appellant's RTI application has been reproduced hereunder as:
1. That the addressee in active connivance with the builder of the property in question, illegally constructed the third floor of the property in the year 1998,-
without obtaining the requisite building development permission and sanctions from the concerned authorities and in utter disregard of the mandatory building norms as had been laid down by the Delhi Government and Municipal Corporation.
2. T h a t i t important to note that through application no. 36- T(B)HQ/NDMC/RTI dated 26.04.2017 I sought Information relating to the construction of the third floor of the property from North Delhi Municipal (hereinafter referred to as NDMC) with the purpose of finding out whether the construction of the third floor of the property in question was sanctioned by the MCD or was it an illegal construction. That on 02.05.2017, NDMC issued Page 1 of 4 a letter containing the information that was sought for by me with the aforementioned letter, wherein it was disclosed that the construction of the third floor of the said property is grossly illegal and that in doing so, no mandatory building norms were adhered to.
3. It is pertinent to mention that in the year 2007, I noticed that the ceiling and walls of my bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen and drawing room had developed major creaks and profuse dripping from the ceiling and some wear and tear on the walls. Witnessing the same, I immediately sought advice from the building engineer and instantly deployed labor, so as to get the ceiling and walls repaired at the earliest so that any major damage could not be caused. I spent around Rs. 1.5 lakhs for getting the aforesaid damage repaired. However soon after 8-9 months, the same problem resurfaced as a result of which I consulted a civil engineer who opined that the entire problem is attributable to the poor planning and construction.
4. That I immediately approached the addressee, so as to apprise the addressee with the circumstances and requested the addressee to get the same repaired so that further damage to the property could be prevented. However what began thereafter was the saga of miseries for me and my family, since the addressee refused to rectify and fix the aforesaid short comings as pointed by the Civil Engineer in the addressee's property and even refused to grant permission to me to get the same repaired and fixed at my own cost.
5. That the damages caused to the property in question is severe, that the entire plastering over the walls have been completely damaged and the same has started to peel off from the walls. Even the walls of the rooms have been totally discolored due to seepage of water into them which is occurring, due to haphazard construction being raised by the addressee, which in turn has damaged the plumbing and the water pipes. Also due to the constant flow of water from the roof into the walls and at times, the flow water is in such great quantity that rooms on the First Floor are even flooded. Hence, owing to the flooding of the rooms, the furniture and other chattels of our client, has been -severely damaged. In fact the electrical appliances of our client have stopped working because of the leakage and water flow and on numerous occasions there has been a short circuit in the geysers installed in the bathrooms of our clients.
6. That I am aged about 84 years and I often stay bed ridden due to constant illness. Further, one of my child is mentally ill and needs constant care and attention. There are no bread earners in my family. As such, there is a threat to our lives every single day owing to the illegal construction and we do not have sufficient finances to change our residence. The structural integrity of the walls of the property has been extremely weakened owing to the subsistence of the problem for nearly 10 years posing a threat to the lives of all its residents. The damage to the property is so severe that the property might collapse at any given point of time.
7. I have requested the addressee on numerous occasions to get the faulty plumbing in the property under his possession fixed, and to repair the walls and the roof of the property which had been damaged due to his deliberate and wilful negligent acts, but unfortunately, the same request has been met with deaf ears, as the addressee has decided not to get any repair works done, just in order to intentionally harass me and my family members. Further, I have been intimidated by the address for pressing the issue.
Page 2 of 48. That since the addressee has refused to repair the damages caused due to the aforesaid illegal and unauthorized construction, I contacted a civil engineer to get repair the aforesaid damages caused to the property due tofaultonaddressee'spartandcametoknowabouttheestimatedvalueoftherepairw hichisofRs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lacs Only). Neither me nor any of my family members possess the finances to fund the repairs.
The PIO& EE(B)-II/KPZ, North DMC, Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter dated 30.07.2018, annexing copy of a reply received from the JE/AE informing the appellant that all complaints are sent to JE-B for site inspection and taking necessary action. It was further stated that as per records, no unauthorised construction was found in r/o A-6/7, IIIrd Floor, Rana Pratap Bagh since September 2017.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2018. The FAA vide order dated 10.09.2018 observed that the information has been furnished, upheld the reply of the PIO and disposed of the appellant's first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Appellant states that the illegal construction started in 1998 while respondent's reply states that no unauthorised construction was found in r/o A-6/7, IIIrd Floor, Rana Pratap Bagh since September 2017. Respondent states the Keshav Puram Zone came into existence in 2017 and hence the response pertains to the said period, the records pertaining to the period prior to 2017 would be available with Civil Lines Zone. Respondent further claims that a revised reply has been sent in the morning of the hearing to the Commission.
Decision The revised reply sent by the respondent was received during the course of the day and on examining the same, it is revealed that contents of this reply are a reiteration of the PIO's reply dated 30.07.2018.
Upon hearing the averments of the appellant, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the response furnished by the PIO is perfunctory and mechanical. The appellant has clearly stated in her case that the illegal construction was carried out on the third floor of the property in the year 1998, which has been overlooked by the respondent in the replies, focussing only on Page 3 of 4 the period from September 2017. No response has been provided for the period prior thereto on the pretext of formation of a new zone. Respondent from Keshav Puram Zone should have checked the relevant records from the parent Zone viz. Civil Line Zone.
Under the circumstances, the Commission deems it appropriate that a fresh inspection of the site and also the relevant records from Civil Lines Zone should be undertaken by the respondent, to reply to the appellant's queries with complete and accurate information. Respondent-Sh. Sunil Kumar is directed to take necessary measures to address the appellant's queries with comprehensive and accurate revised information, to be sent by 30.09.2020, marking a copy thereof to the Commission as a compliance report. It is made clear that in the event that the revised reply is not received at the Commission within the specified time, appropriate action in terms of the RTI Act shall be initiated by Registry of this Bench.
The appeal is thus disposed off on the above terms.
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 Page 4 of 4