Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Tayal vs Mcd on 17 March, 2026

                                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/2025/136509

Tayal                                                 .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

PIO,
Executive Engineer, Building -
II, Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi - 110016                                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    18.02.2026
Date of Decision                    :    16.03.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    17.06.2025
PIO replied on                      :    03.09.2025
First appeal filed on               :    08.10.2025
First Appellate Authority's order   :    14.10.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    03.11.2025

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2025 (offline) seeking the following information:

"Requested to kindly provide us the certified copies of all the documents/affidavits/declarations/forms/drawings/layout/maps/section plan/correspondences till date etc. of any type whatsoever related to the demolish and re-construction of the building/house/structure at B-4/31, Safdarjung Enclave, New delhi-110029 of all owners as follows:

1. The copies of the all the papers and correspondences of any form to MCD building or any deptt. of MCD related to it, that is required for demolishing and reconstruction of B4/31 safd. encl., from the owners of B 4/31 safd. Encl. or by their builders/architects/contractors/designer etc. directly or indirectly.

2. The copies of all the correspondence from MCD building to any one of the above (as per point no. 1) directly or indirectly.

3. The copies of all the approvals given by MCD building to any one of the above (as per point no. 1) directly or indirectly from time to time directly or indirectly.

4. The copies of all the documents including maps/layout/documents of any type etc. submitted to MCD building or other departments of MCD from any one of above (as per point no. 1) and vice versa that is, from MCD to them directly or indirectly.

5. The copies of all the documents including maps/layout/ drawing/documents of any type etc. submitted to other departments of MCD/to any other govt. deptt. from any one of above (as per point no. 1) as per your records and vice versa that is, from MCD/from any other govt. deptt. to them directly or indirectly as per your records."

2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.09.2025 stating as under:

"1 to 5. As per available record, a building plan vide file No. 200/B/SZ/SP/10/I dated 30.7.2010 found sanctioned for construction to Basement, Stilt, Ground, First, Second and Third Floor.

The documents provided to this office are available in fiduciary capacity not for public purpose. (Read Section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act-2005. Applicant is requested to provide relevant documents to establish ownership/relation to the property under reference for which documents are sought. The desire documents shall be provided accordingly under provision of RTI Act-2005."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.10.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 14.10.2025, upheld the reply of PIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar Tayal, appeared in person.

Respondent: Shri Swet Mani, Assistant Section Officer/APIO, appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.11.2025 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the Respondent till the date of hearing. He stated that he is one of the residents of the building concerned and therefore the documents relating to the construction and approvals granted by MCD should be made available to him.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply furnished by the PIO and submitted that the records relating to building plans and documents submitted by the owners/builders are held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity and therefore cannot be disclosed to third parties unless the requester establishes a legitimate relationship with the property. It was further submitted that the Appellant had been requested to provide documents establishing ownership or relation to the property, however, no such documents were provided by him till date. In the absence of such proof, the requested documents could not be disclosed.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the CIC/MCDND/A/2025/136509 Page 3 of 5 Respondent authority, while disclosing sanctioned plan to the Appellant, had clarified that the documents submitted by the owners/builders are held in fiduciary capacity. The Commission further notes that the Appellant was specifically requested by the Respondent Authority to provide documents establishing his ownership or relation to the property so that the requested records could be considered for disclosure. However, the Appellant neither submitted such documents to the Respondent authority nor before the Commission during the hearing. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent and no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-

(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, Superintending Engineer - I, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi - 110016 CIC/MCDND/A/2025/136509 Page 4 of 5 CIC/MCDND/A/2025/136509 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)