Central Information Commission
Mr.Richpal Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 July, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001445/19428
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001445
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Richpal. Singh
S/o Late Sunder Singh
H.No. WZ87 Kham Pur,
RD Patel Nagar,
New Delhi -110008
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra,
PIO & SE(KBZ) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Anand Parbat, DB Gupta Road, Karol Bagh Zone, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 RTI application filed on : 5/12/2011 PIO replied : 23/12/2011 First appeal filed on : 25/01/2012 First Appellate Authority order : 13/02/2012 Second Appeal received on : 8/05/2012 S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. What action has been taken by the No action has been taken.
MCD on appellant's application dated 21- 06-201 1 to prevent the unauthorized construction?
2. Whether the Municipal Corporation As per the record maintained at Zonal level, no building plan had granted any permission or has been sanctioned in our property. However a copy of the approved the map for the RTI application was transferred to PIO building department unauthorized construction in Khasra (HQ) for providing information as per record.They replied No.215/18 New-Patel Nagar, "Tax Clerk, B(HQ) has reported that checked the building opposite Shadipur Depot. plan registers w.e.f 01.01.2005 to till date and found that no building plan file had been submitted in respect of P.No.2151/18, Khasra No.1075/803/SO, New Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Further, Record Keeper, B(HQ) has also reported that as per record/scanning register as maintained, no such building plan file in respect of property under reference found. The old building plan registers which were in Urdu Language were also sent to Urdu Section for locating the file, if any. Rut no such entry found in the in the registers."
3. If the permission was granted by the This question was transferred to PIO building department (HQ) Page 1 of 2 MCD, a copy of such permission and they replied same as above. may be supplied to the appellant.
4. If no permission was granted by the No unauthorized construction was there in the said property.
MCD, what action was taken to prevent the unauthorized construction or is being taken by the MCD against this unauthorized construction.
5. The name of JE in charge of No information was available in their office.
building department during the period of unauthorized construction may also be intimated to appellant.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): FAA ordered that the information given by the PIO was satisfactory and hence the appeal was disposed off. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. M. S. Chauhan representing Mr. Richpal. Singh; Respondent: Mr. Pushpender Kumar, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Suresh Chandra, PIO & SE(KBZ);
The PIO has given most of the information available as per records. The Appellant wants name of the JE who was incharge on 21 June 2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 20 July 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
06 July 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP) Page 2 of 2