Central Information Commission
Vikash Kumar Verma vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 22 February, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SDMCN/A/2022/132362-UM
Mr. Vikash Kumar Verma
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Executive Engineer(Bldg.)
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Building Depart. Zonal Office Building, Najafgarh Zone,
Near Dhansa Stand, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.02.2023
Date of Decision : 22.02.2023
Date of RTI application 03.12.2021
CPIO's response 02.02.2022
Date of the First Appeal 07.03.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 04.04.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.07.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on points, as under:-
The PIO, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, vide letter dated 02.02.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 04.04.2022 directed to provide requisite/ modified information to the Appellant.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Adv Vikash Kumar Verma attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.E, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding action taken report on his complaint w.r.t illegal construction done by Mr. Bhola Ram S/o Sh. Jai Lal. He submitted that he had filed an appeal before the hon'ble court regarding the above said construction wherein the hon'ble court observed that "Needless to say that SDMC/Defendant No. 2 is at liberty to take action as per law against defendant No. 1 Bhola Ram, in case he is found to have flouted rules/bye laws in raising such alteration/construction of the staircase or projection over the said property after the embargo as placed by the said Act (NCT of the Delhi Laws), is lifted, per the rules/regulations/bye laws made in this behalf of defendant no. 2". He stated that his neighbour had constructed his house in such a way that the wall of his house was structurally affected and became extremely weak . Further, he stated that whenever he tries to construct the wall, his neighbour with his unmarried daughter starts creating nuisance. He said he had requested the concerned department to take necessary action but they had not taken his request seriously. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 02.02.2022, a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. He said that the property mentioned under RTI application has been inspected by the concerned area J.E (B) AIGZ, and during inspection no going construction as well as no building material was found stacked at site. However, the property will be inspected again and will take a necessary step, he said Rajasthan where is mall compound.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide an updated and concise revised reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 22.02.2023