Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Datt Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 3 October, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002082/14990
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002082
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Anil Datt Sharma
D - 129 New Seelampur
Delhi - 110053
Respondent : Mr. Tejvir Singh
Deemed PIO & EE(B-II) Sahadara North (building-II), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Zonal Building, Keshav Chowk, Shahadra, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 03/01/2011 PIO replied on : 21/02/2011 First Appeal filed on : 11/03/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : Not Received. Second Appeal received on : Not Mentioned. Information Sought:
1. Provide me report which you have receive any request from above mentioned plots owners for sanctioning the land plan for construction. If yes when.
2. Provide me the time limits you have provided for construction of this plot. Provide me the exact last date of completion of buildings and the exact no. of plot.
3. If you found any irregularity in construction provide me action taking report against constructer and provide me particular sections under which normally you have to initiate action against the delinquent constructers.
4. Please provide me name of the person, is empowered to take action against the plots constructers and what action is due against him for not taking action.
5. Who is empowered to take against the officer for not taking action against the plot constructers and what action is due against them.
6. I have video/photograph of this construction from beginnings. Provide me such norms for collecting/not collecting this evidence for taking legal action?
7. Provide me monthly certificate issued by J.E. under his signature to the effect that there is no unauthorized ongoing construction and/or encroachment in public/government land. (Reference High Court Judgment (Kalyan Sanstha, Social Welfare Organization V/s Union of India and Ors.)
8. If not issued, pleaseprovide me under which law/judgment the said certificate was not issued.
9. Provide me action taking report against the J.E. and A.E. for not compliance the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
10. In the context of said High Court judgment, please give details regarding unauthorized ongoing construction at above mentioned plot.
11. If not, what action is due against J.E. and A.E for dereliction of duty?
12. Provide me the date and other details about the Copies of this certificate issued by J.E. and action taken plan has been furnished to the concerned Deputy Commissioner with a copy to the Head Quarters who would maintain records of such certificates.
Page 1 of 313. Unauthorized construction is a cognizable offence U/s 466 A of MCD Act. Provide me the detail which you have sent to the ;local police for taking action.
14. If 466 A of MCD Act not attracted against the said plot constructer, Provide me such law there under you have delegated power for giving relaxation to above mentioned plot owner.
15. Provide me the name of J.E. Architect (with address and phone no.) and A.E and provide me exact no. of plot where unauthorized construction is being carried out.
16. Provide me under which norms you have permitted relaxation to the constructer for not compliance of Clause 7.3.2 of Building bye laws. If relaxation has not been provided then give me proof in compliance of the said clause.
17. If any map sanctioned for construction of building, please provide me, is it or apartment.
The PIO Reply:
1. Plot opposite 1/7096,Shivaji Park is built by sanction building plan No. 133/B/SH-N/10.
2. 5 Years.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Not applicable.
6. No.
7. There is shortage of ministerial staff and technical hand, so it is not possible to issue such type of report.
8. Answer as per Sr. No. 7 above.
9. Not applicable.
10. Not applicable.11. Question is not clear and same as Sr. No. 1
12. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above.
13. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above.
14. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above.
15. No.
16. There is not such type of rule.
17. Residential.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"Not received any order."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Anil Datt Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. Tejvir Singh, Deemed PIO & EE(B-II);
Respondent states that no construction watch register was in existence and nobody has checked whether the construction has been made as per the sanctioned plan. The respondent has stated in the information provided to the Appellant that there is a shortage of staff and hence MCD officers are not able to check the construction activities. The Commission directs the PIO to provide any documentary evidence during the period when the information was provided to the Appellant showing that there was shortage of staff.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information evidencing that there was shortage of staff around February 2011. The PIO will give this information to the Appellant before 25 October 2011.
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 03 October 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved) Page 3 of 3