Central Information Commission
Mr.D L Wadehra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000688/7629
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000688
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. D. L. Wadhera.
181, Mukerji Park,
New Delhi - 110018.
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena
Public Information Officer & Suptdg Engineer - II MCD West Zone, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden New Delhi RTI application filed on : 19/10/2009 PIO replied : 24/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 11/12/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 28/01/2010 Second Appeal received on : 12/02/2010 Hearing Notice sent on : 31/03/2010 Hearing held on : 06/05/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Size of urinal on IIIrd floor of 182, Mukherji The size of open urinal exist at top floor was not Park (As per actual) and whether it is a urinal mentioned in the regularization plan. However size of or lavatory. open urinal including the open space is 7'-0''* 9'-7 ½'. The Height of open urinal is 1.70m. As per regularization plan, it is an open urinal.
2. Size of shafts of the said building and whether As per regularization plan, the size of shaft is 5'-4 it was according to the provision of Section ½'*3 and 2'-1 ½'. The second part of question was of 14.14.3 of the BBC. clarification in nature which did not come under the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Size of toilets on first floor of the said As per regularization plan, there were two WC's and building (i) near the stairs (ii) near the labour one bathroom of sizes 5'-1 ½" * 4"-6", 3'*3'-6" and room and (iii) Two toilets in bathroom near 5'-4 ½"*4'6" respectively existed on FF. In two rooms. regaularization plan there was no toilet near the stairs at FF and no room was mentioned as labour room. One WC & one bathroom of the same size existed in between two rooms, the size of the same was already mentioned.
4. In any approved colony, if the plan of the Did not come under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, building is approved for the MCD and no pact 2005. of that building is shown for road widening, whether the MCD could match a pact of that building without issue of acquisition notice.
5. Reason for not demolishing the building wall The reply had already been furnished to the Appellant of 182, Mukherji Park which was creating reply in respect of ID no. 189 dated 08/07/2009. problem for the Appellant.
6. Details of action taken against the clinic No action was warranted.
situated on 181, Mukherji Park.
7. Details of action taken against the AE (MCD) The reply had already been furnished to the Appellant who allowed the construction of outer wall reply in respect of ID no. 526 dated 16/03/2009. which was not according to the rule, on the site of 182, Mukherji Park in Oct, 2005 and the action taken against the owner of the property.
Ground of First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO. First Appellate Authority ordered:
On 28/01/2010, the FAA in its order directed the PIO to give the proper information to the Appellant within a week and to send the compliance report the FAA. The next date of hearing was fixed on 03/02/2010. On 03/02/2010, the FAA directed the PIO to inspect the property and send the report to him within 10 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO after the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. D. L. Wadhera;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Bansal, EE(B-II) on behalf of Mr. K. C. Meena PIO & SE-II;
The Appellant has been provided the information as per the records by the PIO. The First Appellate Authority has ordered an inspection of the property which would have to be done by taking measurements within the property. The JE Mr. Satish Gautam has recorded that he was not allowed to take measurements within the property by the owner of the building. Under Right to Information an appellant can seek copies of the records that are in existence or even demand a joint inspection of a property or work which is in public space. The FAA has erred in asking the officer to visit a site and taken measurements within the property. The appellant claims that MCD officers have right to do this under MCD Act. However, the Commission cannot order or enforce a measurement of the internal dimensions of a property.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided.
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 May 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)