Central Information Commission
R L Kain vs Central Public Works Department (Nr) on 22 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971
R L Kain .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
CPIO under RTI,
O/o. the Chief Engineer,
Central Public Works Department,
Central Vista, Parliament House
Library Building, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2025
Date of Decision : 19.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.12.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 06.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 1 of 10
"Supply of information on urgent basis under proviso(1) of Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 for on sanction of building plan and issue of Completion Certificate of new Parliament building emergent basis so as to raise the question in current session of Parliament - had the CC been refused by competent authority the security breach would have been avoided - request for Kindly supply following information under the proviso (1) of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on emergent basis so that the matter is raised in the current session of Parliament putting before the Lok Sabha the factual position for fair and free discussion on the subject.
1. Please confirm that CPIO had received any RTI application of the applicant in the recent past relating to new Parliament, if yes, what is the status of RTI application(s).
2. In a similar matter to my on-line RTI application dated 1-9-2023 to CPIO, Chief Architect, NDMC, New Delhi through her WhatApp message on 15-12- 2023 apprised, "6. As per circular No.7/10/2014-W-II/DG/Vol. II/501 dated 18-5-2016 of CPWD, MoUD, it is decided that CPWD officers need not take approval from local bodies for erection of government buildings as per section-3 of said Act. However, they shall give reasonable notice to the local bodies as per proviso to Section 3 of the Government Buildings Act, 1899 before erection of Government Building". Please confirm or deny the contents of above circulars. The executive orders cannot override the statutory laws viz. Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and Master Plan for Delhi and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Hence, the executive orders of MoUD are null and void. Please this fact and declare under which CPWD is governed for grant of Building Sanction Plan for Central government premises. Give specific reply.
3. If the your reply is positive to Para-2 above then apprise since when and which Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi are applicable to CPWD for grant of Building Sanction Plans and Completion Certificates to such buildings which are constructed by CPWD, please supply the legal authority applicable to CPWD.
3. If the your reply is positive to Para-2 above then apprise since when and which Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi are applicable to CPWD for grant of Building Sanction Plans and Completion Certificates to such buildings which are constructed by CPWD, please supply the legal authority applicable to CPWD.CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 2 of 10
4. Please confirm or deny whether CPWD, New Delhi is covered under Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, if yes, please apprised under which clause of Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016 incorporated under Delhi Development Act, 1957 with the previous approval of the Central Government, if yes, under definition the name of CPWD exists of the Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, please disclose the clause number under which the name of CPWD exists, if no provisions exists under the Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016 the under what circumstances CPWD entertained the application for construction of new premises of parliament, please disclose the name and designation of officer who entertained the application for granted Building Plan?
5. Please disclose who is the owner of the land of new Parliament premises under Clause 2.6.2 of Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, when and from whom the, 'Terms and Proposal of construction of new Parliament premises was received, please supply the certified copy thereof.
6. Please disclose the name and designation of officer when and by whom the application for anction of Building Plan was moved by which competent authority filed an undertaking of ownership of land as mandated under Clause (c) of 2.6.2 of the Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, please supply the certified copy of the declaration, if no such declaration was accompanied with the application, then what circumstances the application for sanction of Building Plan was entertained, please disclose the name and designation of officer who accepted the illegal proposal and deviating from building bye-laws.
7. Please confirm when the Building Plan of new Parliament premises was sanctioned and what was the Validity of Building Permit under Clause 2.4 of Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, please supply the certified copy of building plan permit sanction.
8. Please apprise when and by whom the Occupancy-cum-completion certificate was moved by the authority concerned under Clause 2.4.3. of Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, please supply the certified copy thereof.
9. Please confirm whether any competent authority applied for Revalidation of Building Permit, if yes, what are the details thereof, please supply the certified copy thereof.CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 3 of 10
10. Please confirm that the photographs of the new Parliament Building were submitted by the authorities concerned under clause 2.6.4. if yes, please disclose when.
11. Please confirm whether the owner, architect and other professionals including Structural Safety Certificate in proforma applied for Declaration of Completion Certificate i.e. (COCCRF) Common Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificated Request Form of the new Parliament premises as mandated under Clause 2.6.5 of the Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, if yes, please supply the certified copy thereof.
12. Please confirm whether the (OCC) Occupancy-cum-Completion Certificate was applied within the time limit as stipulated in Building Plan Sanction and was granted or refused under Clause 2.7 of Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, please apprise the factual position of grant of refusal or grant of OCC, please certified copy of the decision arrived at.
13. In case of refusal of OCC as mandated under Clause No.2.7.2 of Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, then please supply the certified copy of decision arrived at.
14. Please confirm or deny whether the Part OCC was issued to meet the minimum requirement of habitation, under Clause 2.7.3 of the Unified building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, please apprise the position in categorical terms.
15. Please confirm or deny that approval/NOC from External Agencies has since been obtained as per Clause No.2.7.4, ibid bye-laws, yes or not, apprise the factual position thereof.
16. Please confirm as to when the Inspection was carried out by the sanctioning authority under Clause No.2.7.5 of ibid bye-laws on receipt of the notice in OCCRF along with mandatory documents, disclose the name and designations of inspecting team being a risk category building. Whether all fees and charges, OCC in Form D-1 as mandated under 2.7.1 of the bye-laws.
17. Please apprise whether OCC was refused for this building giving full reasons was conveyed to the competent authority as mandated under Clause No. 2.7.9. of the ibid rules, if yes, please supply the certified copy thereof.CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 4 of 10
18. Please apprise whether the sanctioning authority failed to intimate the owner/applicant, of its refusal or approval or any intimation, within the time limit stipulated in bye-laws 2.7.1, OCC deemed to have been issued.
19. Please disclose the name and address of constructing company including contractor and sub-subcontractor making them a party for taking decennial professional liability insurance to cover for such liability.
20. Please disclose the particulars of owner of such building for fixing responsibility for carrying out the work in accordance with the building bye- laws as per clause 2.11 of the bye-laws as it carries numerous lapses which led to exploding of smoke bomb on 13th December, 2023 due to laxity of sanctioning authority and construction contractor etc. etc.
21. Please supply CPWD proposal sent to Expert Appraisal Committee of Ministry of MEFCC, Indira Parayanvaran Bhawan, New Delhi which decided in its meeting held on 21-23, 2020 for display of "Lotus" a BJP election symbol atop the new Parliament in violation of People Representation Act, disclose the source of executive and political hierarchies which had sent its recommendations to CPWD for seeking approval from EAC. Please justify the role of EAC for grant of sanction for display of "Lotus" an election symbol of BJP atop of new building as there is no loss of greenery at the roof of any building.. whether the natural drain system has been ensured in terms of Notification of Min. of EFCC vide No. S.O. 3999€ dated 9th December, 2016?
22. Please apprise whether the intimation was sent to NDMC or other statutory agencies for start of construction of work and completion of construction of new Parliament house on SARAL FORM 1, if yes, please supply the certified copies thereof.
23. Please apprise whether the provisions for universal design for differently abled, elderly and children has since been made as mandatory under the law, if not what are the reasons thereof.
24. Please confirm whether the disaster management such as seismic strengthening/retrofitting has since been made as mandated under clause 9.2 of bye-laws.
25. Please confirm whether the adequate space for car parking has since made in the building plan, if not what are the reasons of this laxity under the changed scenario.CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 5 of 10
26. Please confirm that there no proposal of display of "Lotus", "Peacock"
and "Banyan Tree" atop new Parliament building, if yes, from where the recommendations were received by CPWD either from executive or political hierarchy, please supply the certified copy thereof, if no recommendations from these sources then disclose the source on which basis the proposal was got passed by CPWD from EAC and later rescinded on my complaint. Please disclose the factual position to make the cloud clear.
27. Please confirm whether necessary and mandatory approval of Delhi Urban Art Commission has since been obtained by CPWD and also confirm whether the Speaker Lok Sabha through the Secretary-General Lok Sabha had received any kind of Terms of Reference was received in terms of Clause No. 13.1 under the ibid bye-laws, if yes, please apprise whether approval of Delhi Urban Art Commission has been obtained for indoor sculptures, wall paintings indoor installations and other forms relevant to the habitat and outdoor installations, murals and frescos, if yes, supply the copy thereof.
28. Please disclose the source which had made recommendations and its justification for display of ancient Hindu scriptures which does not match with the building resulting into waste of government revenue as undesirable material has been displayed.
29. Please confirm whether it is a fact that an artistic painting consisting of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad shacking their hands in cheerful mood with the display of unwarranted picture of elephant trunk above the imaginary photo in Nalanda Hall, if yes, what is the justification of display of imaginary art work when the real picture is in public domain resulting into distortion and disparaging the public image of Baba Saheb Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
30. Please confirm whether the similar engraving picture on stone work has also been displayed at the porch of new construction of Parliament Annexe Extension consisting of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad behind them Abdul Kalam, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel for handing over and taking over ceremony of Constitution. Please supply the date, place and occasion of this event when this event took place and who proposed the imaginary art work for this picture which has hurt the susceptibilities of teeming millions of his followers. Please disclose the names and designations of executive and political hierarchy for fixing responsibility in court of law for hurt out sentiments. Whether Delhi Urban Art Commission has accorded its approval for distortion of facts and misrepresentation of events without any documentary evidence, if yes, please supply the same or give in writing that there is nothing on record.
CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 6 of 1031. Please confirm that there are three entry gates viz. Makar Dwar etc., for Hindu religion nomenclatures for new Parliament Building in violation of secular Preamble to the Constitution, if yes, what is the source of naming them whether necessary approval was accorded by Urban Art Commission under Clause 13.10 of ibid bye-laws before submitting building sanction plans for scrutiny. If yes, please supply the necessary approval, if no such approval was obtained what are the reasons thereof.
32. Please disclose that whether CPWD has prepared any booklet for Exhibits displayed in each hall for the visitors, if yes, pleaser supply one set in English and one set Hindi for scrutiny of facts.
33. Please clarify on which date the 'Sengol' made of gold stick was fixed near the seat of Speaker, Lok Sabha a symbol of transfer of power by one king to his successive king in terms of practice prevail -ing in 'Chole Kingdom' whether it was before the date of issue of Completion Certificate or after the date of issue of CC of the building in violation of building bye- laws under which the building plan was sanctioned.
34. Please confirm that Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi inaugurated the new Parliament building and installed 'Singol' on 28-5-2023 at 7.11 AM establishment of "Raja" "Praja" rule, PM Modi performed 'Ganapati Homam' to invoke Gods blessings and first session was convened on 19th September, 2023, please confirm with record that as to whether Completion Certificate was issued or not before 28-5-2023 and who performed this religious ceremony whether it was CPWD or by Lok Sabha Secretariat. In case no Completion Certificate was issued by CPWD being building plan sanctioning authority then as to how the entry was made on 28-5-2023 without obtaining CC from CPWD and what action has been initiated by CPWD under the New Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi 2016 for illegal possession of building. Please enumerate the same.
35. Please confirm whether CPWD has invited tenders on 12-12-2023 for providing and fixing of glasses in the 'Visitor's Gallery', in Lok Sabha, if yes, it appears that after issue of Completion Certificate by building plan sanctioning authority has no locus standee for providing and fixing of glass in the visitor's gallery, if no Completion Certificate has been issued to executing work agency i.e. the Chief Engineer, CPWD then as to how the Lok Sabha started its function which is illegal, please explain the factual position about exact date of issue of Completion Certificate and Lok Sabha started functioning without obtaining completion certificate. In case no CC was issued and owner started working then what action has been taken by CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 7 of 10 CPWD under New Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi 2016, please elucidate the factual position as per records.
36. On my personal visit to new Parliament premises on 5th November, 2023 I found the work was in progress in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Houses as both Houses were locked inside of the Hall and we were denied any entry, please confirm that the workforce of Chief Engineer, CPWD was doing work as on 5-11-2023 them as to how the CC is legal issued on any earlier date when the work is in progress.
37. Please confirm that if the glasses would have been fixed in the Visitor's Gallery" by CPWD then the House Breach happened on 13-12-2023 would have been avoided altogether, it means that CPWD is still working and if CC had been issued that is illegal, please elucidate in detail with records.
38. I am sure that all records is in the possession of CPIO, Chief Engineer, CPWD, Central Vista, Parliament Annexe Building, Parliament House, New Delhi 110001 and nothing falls under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. I am enclosing blank IPO No. 18G 338698 of Rs.20/-(no IPO of Rs. 10/- available) as prescribed fee under RTI Act, 2005.
39. I most humbly urge upon to supply the above information in public interest under proviso (1) of Section 7 of RTI Act, 2005 so that the full facts and material is placed before the House for free and fair discussion on records as provided by the concerned public authority.
40. I along with my team members may please be allowed for inspection of relevant records and files on the subject at the earliest."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with Shri Manoj Kumar Kain. Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Kanujiya, Superintendent Engineer- participated in the hearing.CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 8 of 10
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 31.05.2024 is not available on record.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date.
6. Shri Sandeep Kumar Kanujiya while defending their case inter alia submitted that a reply dated 04.07.2024 has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that no reply was furnished by the PIO within stipulated tie frame. However, after filing of instant Second Appeal, the Respondent vide letter dated 04.07.2024 provided a reply wherein it is mentioned that relevant documents can be produced before the Commission subject to concurrence of parliament authorities.
8. Perusal of the records reveals that the first appeal filed by the Appellant was not disposed of by the concerned FAA. Shri Sandeep Kumar Kanujiya, Superintendent Engineer, is the concerned FAA for Central Vista Project. Since, the first appeal of the Appellant was not decided by the concerned FAA, therefore, it would be appropriate that the matter may be remanded back to the FAA for proper disposal of the first appeal. At this juncture, the Appellant being aged and in view of ongoing winters, requested to allow sufficient time for him to appear before the FAA and contest his case. Considering his advanced age and the prevailing winter weather conditions, a period of four months for conducting the hearing of the First Appeal would be sufficient. The FAA before disposing the first appeal should hear the Appellant and then pass speaking/reasoned order in view of the OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, wherein elaborated duties and responsibilities of the FAA is illustrated as under:
CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 9 of 10"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
9. Accordingly, the instant matter is remanded back to Shri Sandeep Kumar Kanujiya, Superintendent Engineer, FAA, for proper adjudication of the same upon providing opportunity of fair hearing to both the parties. The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order within four months of the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, O/o the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Central Vista, Parliament House Library Building, New Delhi-110001 CIC/CPWNR/A/2024/118971 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)