Central Information Commission
Mr.Lovkeshgoel vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 16 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/903686/17425
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/903686
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Lokesh Goel
R/o: Plot No. - 2, Block -G,
Pocket - 18, First Floor, Sec-15,
Rohini, Delhi - 110089.
Respondent : Mr. M. P. Gupta
PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o The Executive Engineer (Bldg.), Rohini Zone, Sec-5, Delhi - 110085.
RTI application filed on : 15/09/2011 PIO replied : 12/10/2011 First appeal filed on : 05/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 24/11/2011 Second Appeal received on : 22/12/2011 Information Sought:
1. Whether any commercial activity can be carried out in the basement of residential building situated at 'Plot no.2, Block-G, Pocket - 18, Sec-15, Rohini, Delhi - 110089', having a plot area of 90 sq. mtrs and having four floors above the basement, which as per plan approved by MCD is for 'Domestic and Household Storage only'?
2. Kindly specify the type/king of commercial activity that is permissible to be carried out in the basement of the residential building situated at the above mentioned address in ques. No.1.
3. Kindly specify the percentage of the total area of the basement that can be used to carry out any commercial activity, if permitted.
4. Whether any approval for carrying out commercial activity has been granted to the owner of the basement of residential building having address "Plot no.2, Block-G, Pocket - 18, Sec-15, Rohini, Delhi
- 110089'? if yes, copy of the such order/approval issued may be provided.
5. Whether commercial activity like operating a Poly-clinic/Hospital/Nursing Home/Issuance of Medical certificates for obtaining driving licenses can be undertaken in the basement of a residential building with address as in ques. Nos. 1 & 4 above?
6. Kindly provide me names, addresses, phone nos. and e-mail ids of the authority which is responsible and authorized for issuing permission to carry out commercial activity in the basement of residential building as the one in ques. Nos. 1 & 4 above.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. Owner/occupier can use the property as per provision in the sanction building plan/and as per the provision of MPD-2021.
2. Please see the reply no.1 and applicant is advised to see the MPD-2021 which is easily available in the open market.
3. Please see the reply at Sr. No.1.
4. Applicant is requested to come in this office on any working day between 2.00 PM to 5.00PM and see the available record.Page 1 of 2
5. Please see the reply at Sr. No.1.
6. Please see the reply at Sr. No.4.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The appellant stated that he has not received the reply. The information was handed over to the appellant during the proceedings itself."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Lokesh Goel;
Respondent: Mr. K. R. Meena, AE(B-I) and Mr. Rakesh, JE on behalf of Mr. M. P. Gupta, PIO & SE-II;
The Appellant had file an RTI application on 14/09/2011 and the Respondent claims that he sent the information on 12/10/2011. However, the Appellant states that he has not received this and the Respondent has no evidence to show that the information was sent by speed post to the Appellant. Finally the information was handed over to the Appellant on 22/11/2011.
The PIO has not provided information on query-6. This information should have been provided by the PIO to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-6 to the appellant before 05 March 2012.
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 complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. 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 15 March 2012 at 11.30am 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. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons. 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 16 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 2 of 2