Central Information Commission
Deepak vs Mcd on 29 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/MCDND/C/2024/626689
Deepak ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
PIO under RTI,
Executive Engineer-(Bldg-I)-Civil
Lines, Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, Bldg.-I Department,
Civil Line Zone, 16--Rajpur
Road, Kamla Nehru Ridge,
Delhi-110054. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.12.2025
Date of Decision : 26.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.05.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.06.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 1 of 7
"(a) Does MCD have approved any Sanctioned Building Plan (SBP) for present ongoing construction at the residential Property No: 2320, Hudson Lane, Delhi-110009?
(b) What is the actual FAR achieved at the residential Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, Delhi-110009 at GF, FF, SF and third floor. Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site through JE(B) concerned and specify the actual FAR achieved in yds or mtrs?
(c) What is the actual building height built/achieved at the ongoing construction at the residential Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, Delhi-
110009 against the Max. permissible height of 17.5m? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site through JE(B) concerned and specify the height in mtrs.
(d) Does front setback of 10 feet is achieved /left at the ongoing construction at the residential Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, Delhi- 110009 as per building bye-laws and Sanctioned building plan? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual front setback in feet/mtrs.
(e) Does the ongoing construction at the residential Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, Delhi-110009 have any excess coverage/deviations against Sanctioned Building Plan at stilt, ground, first, second and third floor? If yes, then Kindly specify the actual FAR achieved at GF, FF, SF and third floor.
(f) What is the actual ground coverage done/achieved at the aforesaid plot against the max permissible limit of 75% in this plot? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual ground coverage in % age.
(g) Does the owner/builder/occupier of Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, New Delhi-110009 has built any room at the roof of third floor? If yes, then Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual FAR achieved at 3rd floor.
(h) What is actual ceiling height achieved at stilt floor in aforesaid property? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual height achieved in feet/mtrs.
CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 2 of 7(i) What is the actual width of front balconies achieved at stilt, GF, FF, SF and third floor in aforesaid property? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual balcony size in feet/mtrs.
(j) Does the owner/builder/occupier of Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, New Delhi-110009 as extended any balcony/Gl balcony in rear service lane? If yes, then kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual rear balcony size in feet/mtrs.
(k) Does the aforesaid Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, New Delhi- 110009 have any deviations from Sanctioned Building plan as per the MPD 2021, UBBL-2016 and the DMC Act, 1957? If yes, then kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the
(l) Kindly share the date and time of visit by JE(B) for conducting the inspection of aforesaid property site for gathering the sought information.
(m) What is the action taken by JE(B) Nitesh Katiyar and AE(B) Vipin Gosain on my written complaint vide diary no: 1739 dated 28.03.2024 to the EE(Bldg-I), Civil Line Zone/MCD, Delhi, against ongoing construction at Property no: 2320, Hudson Lane, New Delhi-110009? Kindly provide the certified copy ATR (Action taken report).
(n) Does JE(B) Nitesh Katiyar & AE(B) Vipin Gosain have complied with standard operating procedure for demolition and sealing against unauthorized construction issued vide MCD circular no D/95/CE/Bldg. HQ/MCD/2024 dated 29.01.24 in my aforesaid complaint?"
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 3 of 7 Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kanodia, Executive Engineer, appeared in person.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.06.2024 is not available on record.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated Nil disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Complainant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. An application under Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed on 21.05.2024 through NIC online RTI portal of MCD, but due to technical/server issues application could not be seen, as such the reply in r/o said RTI application could not be provided to the applicant.
2. No second appeal was ever received.
3. Notice for the second appeal issued by Hon'ble CIC was received on 27.11.2025 but aggrieved applicant did not supply the notice of second appeal to the PIO:
4. Now, the sought information has been sent to the applicant vide letter No. PIO/RTI/EE(B)-I/CLZ/MCD/2025-26/D-4862 dated 09.12.2025 (Copy of reply to the applicant annexed as 'A'). Hence, the second appeal may be treated as closed in favour of responding PIO.
Note-Copy of this report has also been sent to the applicant on mobile No. ********36 & Email ID *********[email protected]."
6. For the sake of clarity, point-wise reply given to the Complainant is reproduced as under:
3 (A) Now a day all type of building plan in the Municipal jurisdiction of MCD are being entertained through Online system under Ease of Doing Business (EODB) as per the prevailing norms of Unified Building Bye Laws 2016/Master Plan of Delhi-2021 and details are available on public domain i.e. MCD website www.mcdonline.nic.in (Link:- Citizen Corner-Building Plan Sanction (EODB)-Login-Sanction Building Plan Release). However, the information sought does not have large public interest and they are related to third party, which comes under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 4 of 7
(B). The information sought does not come under the purview as per section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and also does not have large public interest and they are related to third party, which comes under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
(C). Reply as per point No. B. (D). No such information is available in record. However, the information sought does not have large public interest and they are related to third party, which comes under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
(E). Reply as per point No. D. (F). Reply as per point No. B. (G). Reply as per point No. D. (H). Reply as per point No. B. (I). Reply as per point No. B. (J). Reply as per point No. D. (K). Reply as per point No. B. (L). Reply as per point No. D. (M). Reply as per point No. D. (N). Reply as per point No. B. Decision
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Complainant remained absent despite due notice. The Respondent submitted that the RTI application was filed through the NIC online portal on 21.05.2024, but due to technical/server issues, the application could not be viewed earlier, resulting in non-issuance of a timely reply. The Respondent stated that the technical issues have now been resolved and that the complete point-wise CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 5 of 7 reply has been furnished to the Complainant vide letter dated 09.12.2025, with a copy also sent through mobile and email. It was further submitted that several queries sought by the Complainant relate to third-party building information and fall under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act or pertain to inspection/clarification requests that do not constitute "information" under Section 2(f).
8. Upon perusal of the record, the Commission notes that the Respondent has now provided the available information, and no mala fide intent is established. The complaint was filed directly without exhausting the first appellate remedy under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. As the information stands supplied and no further direction is warranted under Section 18 of the RTI Act, no intervention of the Commission is required.
The Complaint is dismissed 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:
FAA under RTI, Superintending Engineer-(Bldg- I)-
Civil Lines, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Bldg.-I Department, Civil Line Zone, 16--Rajpur Road, Kamla Nehru Ridge, Delhi-110054.CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 6 of 7 CIC/MCDND/C/2024/626689 Page 7 of 7
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)