Central Information Commission
Mrvijay Kumar Gupta vs Gnctd on 8 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/000171
Vijay Kumar Gupta v. Public Works Department.
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 3.11.2014 Reply: 29.11.2014 Time: 26 days
FAA: 12.12.2014 FAO: 8.1.2015 Time: 27 days
SA: 3.2.2015 Hearing: 3.6.2015 Decision: 8615
Result: Appeal Closed.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. Public Authority is represented by Ravindra Yadav.
Facts:
2. Appellant through his RTI application sought to know whether according to the demarcation survey conducted by PWD, authorizes 28.10.2004 which has duly been submitted in an affidavit by PWD authorities on the building belonging to Dhawan Eye Center, covered in the said demarcation survey at 30 from north and 26 from south and copy of notice dt 30.5.2013 issued to Dhawan Eye Center. CPIO replied that information on point no 1 is already available in the demarcation survey supplied by you and copy of notice enclosed. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. First appellate authority advises the appellant to appeal Project Manager, F13 for further assistance. Being unsatisfied appellant approached the Commission.
Decision:
3. Both the parties made their submission. Respondent officer submitted that he wanted to know whether building of Dhawan Eye Center is covered under demarcation or not. On point no. 1 of RTI application, PIO told that information sought was covered by the demarcation report itself, copy of which was already given to appellant and on point no 2 copy of notice was also supplied.
4. In response to another point, it was stated that the execution of elevated corridors from Vikas Puri to Meera bagh at outer ring road, is at dispute before court, as there is an encroachment in outer ring road.
5. The appellant wanted to know why Dhawan Eye Center was retained and why the land of several poor owner was acquired by the department. Appellant alleged that there is no hospital or eye center in that building, it's just a shopping complex. He wants to know details of land taken over by PWD from Dhawan Eye Center.
6. Officer says these questions were not asked earlier under RTI. Whatever sought by him under RTI application was provided and information sought by him was already part of the notice issued on 30.5.2013 by PWD to Dhawan Eye Center, copy of which was given.
7. Respondent officer submitted that there was a demarcation of right of way of outer ring road in persuasion of High Court's direction. Thereafter to secure accurate demarcation before start of project there was another demarcation in 2013 and based on that demarcation, a notice of taking 41 sq meters was given to Dhawan Eye Center. The officer explained this in response to clarification sought today.
8. The appellant alleged Mr Dhawan, owner of Dhawan Eye Center threatened him and he has complained at several authorities against him.
9. The Commission observes that sufficient information has been provided and whatever question raised by appellant during the hearing was answered by respondent before the Commission. Hence the appeal is closed.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO, Executive Engineer, Flyover Project Division,F132, PWD, Mukarba Chowk, GT Karnal Road, Delhi110033
2. Vijay Kumar Gupta GG 1/131 A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi110018