Central Information Commission
Ravi Bhinda vs Mcd on 31 December, 2025
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855
Ravi Bhinda .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
PIO under RTI,
Executive Engineer
(Building)-HQ, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, 9th
Floor, E-1 Wing, Dr. S.P.M.
Civic Centre, J L Nehru Marg,
New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.12.2025
Date of Decision : 22.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 12.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.06.2024
Information sought:
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855 Page 1 of 61. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The undersigned is seeking the following information/documents regarding Proposed Commercial Mall / Commercial Complex and Multiplex named "MGF City Mall" or "VR Metropolitan Mall" situated at Khyber Pass, Delhi (Said Commercial Complex) being developed by North Delhi Metro Mall Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as MGF Metro Mall Pvt Ltd.) /(MGF Developments Limited) from your good office under the Right to Information Act, 2005;
1. Please provide the copy of all Building Sanctioned Plans, Revised Building Plans approved by MCD for said Commercial Complex including the Plans/revised Plan sanctioned for Multiplex Cinemas/Theatres in the year of 2008 and 2013.
2. Please provide the copy of all Correspondence and Notings with respect to Building sanctioned Plans/revised Building Plans approved by MCD for said Commercial Complex including the Plans/revised Plan sanctioned for Multiplex Cinemas/Theatres since 2006 till date.
3. Please provide the Copy of the Layout Plan as approved by the Standing Committee vide its resolution No. 368 dt. 26-09-2007 including all plans, drawings, minutes of meetings, Correspondence, File Notings etc. for said Commercial Complex.
4. Please provide the Copy of the Layout Plan as approved by the Standing Committee vide its resolution No. 84 dt. 21-08-2019 including all plans, drawings, minutes of meetings, Correspondence, File Notings etc. for said Commercial Complex.
5. Please provide Copy of File No. 70/A/HQ/2012 including all Correspondence and Notings.
6. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. being bona fide sub-lessee is exclusive occupier of Multiplex area in the Commercial Complex vide Agreement dated 06.09.2006. Copy of Order dt. 24.02.2023 passed by Hon'ble Central Information Commission is enclosed for you reference."CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855 Page 2 of 6
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 01.01.2024 stating as under:
"1. Record Keeper, Building (HQ), has provided the sanctioned building plan file No.70/A/HQ/2012 dated 01.03.2012 relating to "Proposed building plan for construction for Khyber Pass Commercial Complex at Khyber Pass, Civil Line, Delhi". Further, sanctioned building plan / other documents is an intellectual property of the Architect / private documents of the owner and the same cannot be provided a 3rd party. Hence, applicant is required to submit copies of ownership documents, identity proof and authority letter from the applicant / authorized signatory in his favour. Thereafter, copies of the requisite documents shall be provided on payment of requisite charges under the provisions of RTI Act-2005.
2. As per point No.1 above.
3. The information sought vide this point relates to PIO/Sr. Town Planner, MCD to whom a copy of this RTI Application is being transferred for providing information available with them directly to the applicant under the RTI Act-2005.
4. As per point No.3 above.
5. As per point No.1 above.
6. As per point No.1 above.
7. As per above."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855 Page 3 of 6Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: He, present along with his council Adv. Amita Gaur, in person. Respondent: Ms. Monika Maurya, Consultant and Shri Arvind Choudhary, AE/PIO, appeared in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.06.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Appellant, represented by counsel, submitted that the denial of information on the grounds of intellectual property and third-party ownership was wholly untenable. It was argued that building plans, layout plans, permissions and sanctions issued by a statutory authority are public documents involving public safety considerations, and hence, cannot be withheld.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the Appellant and reiterated the same during the hearing.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that reply given by the Respondent PIO is incomplete, evasive and misleading. The Commission notes that in file No. CIC/MCDND/A/2023/145483, it has already examined a similar issue regarding disclosure of building plans, layout plans, and related documents, especially in the context of public safety and transparency. In that matter, the Commission observed:
""Notwithstanding the above, considering the gravity of issue flagged by the appellant regarding alleged encroachment by the owners of the subject property in the locality mentioned, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent (July, 2024) incident in Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi in which young lives of three IAS aspirants CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855 Page 4 of 6 were lost due to alleged deviation from the building plans. Such circumstances necessitate upfront disclosure of information viz. building plan, layout, permission, sanction, encroachment cases, demolition orders, etc. in public domain under suo-moto disclosure in the RTI Act to facilitate public scrutiny and safeguard the interest of stake holder. In this regard, after the unfortunate incident MCD has issued guideline vide Circular bearing No. Addl. Comm. (Engg.)/mcd/2024/D-41/E-IN-C (n) dated 29.07.2024 (subject- Urgent measures to prevent misuse of basement and other related matters). However, there is a need to widen the scope of disclosure. Accordingly, in the interest of transparency and probity an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of building plan, layout, permission, sanction and its related notifications/orders as also encroachment cases in tune with the letter and spirit of suo moto disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This finds resonance under recent judgement given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website. This will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of such RTI Applications."
9. The present case relates to sanctioned building plans and related documents for a large commercial complex open to public use; the Commission finds that the Respondent Public Authority is required to disclose the information in the same spirit and in the same manner as already directed in the above case. The plea of "intellectual property" or "private ownership"
cannot override the building safety and public safety, statutory compliance, and public access to sanctioned plans approved by a statutory authority under law.
10. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information including sanctioned building plans, revised plans, layout plans, Standing Committee approved plans, and related correspondence/file notings, subject only to redaction of signatures, personal identification data, or other information strictly exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855 Page 5 of 611. The Respondent shall ensure that the information is supplied within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Superintending Engineer (Building) HQ, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 9th Floor, E-1 Wing, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J L Nehru Marg, New Delhi - 110002 CIC/MCDND/A/2024/119855 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)