Central Information Commission
Shri.Raman Mehta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 June, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001011/12883
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/0001011
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Raman Mehta S/o Late Sh. Pc Mehta
H.No 03-04, Empire Estate
Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road
Sultanpur,
New Delhi-110030
Respondent : PIO & SE-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of the Superintending Engineer-II South Zone; Green Park New Delhi-110016 RTI application filed on : 20/12/2010 PIO replied on : 17/01/2011 First Appeal filed on : 01/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order on : 04/03/2011 Second Appeal received on : 18/04/2011 SL. Query Reply of PIO
1. Why no action was taken on application dated 26/08/2008 to The matter was subjudice before the 01/02/2010? Who are the staff and members? What action has High Court. Action has been initiated been taken are errant officer and staff? Provide proof of action under Sections 343, 344 and 345-A of taken. DMC Act 1957 and no demolition On which date orders from at MCD were received by your office action has been taken so far. However or Legal branch of MCD. the property has been sealed on 26/07/2010.
2. What action was planned and taken after receipt of these orders -
Please provide Copy of action recommended and action taken.
3. On what basis, sealing was preferred rather than demolition? Please see the section 343,344 & 345-A Please provide copy of such office action memo. of DMC Act 1957. The reason for sealing is not recorded in the file.
4. Honorable High Court of Delhi also maintained orders of A copy has been downloaded from the Demolitions on 20/10/20W vide WP(C)/14180 Year 2009. Please website. confirm receipt Of these orders in your office.
5. What action was recommended and taken after receipt of these As per file no further action has been orders. Please provide copy of proposed action and action taken taken as the case is pending before the after these orders. administration of Delhi.
6. When demolition is proposed to be carried out of above The photograph of the sealing action is mentioned house no. Please provide copy of sealing activity and available on file. witnesses, who have witnessed sealing proceedings? 1s the seal is intact till date? If yes please provide proof of intact seal as on date.
7. Please confirm action taken on our letters dated 04/03/2010 and As per record the property was booked 12/05/2009 regarding illegal construction in house no. 24 & 1A on 18/01/2010 and sealing action was respectively, which was duly received in your office. Also, taken on 26/07/2010 provide a copy of the report of the action taken by your department in subject letters.
8. If Lalita, Park type incident take place due to these illegal, Concerned authority is responsible constructions, who are the authorities will be held responsible for however unauthorized construction has any loss of life or property or disability caused to individuals in been sealed on 26/07/2010. such incidents. What are penalties laid out for such authorities, under the rules and regulations of MCD? Can they also be prosecuted under Criminal Procedure Code for such lapses?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No satisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed the PIO to send a reviewed reply the information to the Appellant within 2 weeks.
Grounds of the Second Appeal:
1. The inaction and the non production of documents are neither justified nor sustainable in law.
2. That the absence of response by the SPIO & First Appellate authority.
3. That the SPIO & First Appellate authority has deliberately avoided the release of the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Raju Foujdar representing Mr. Raman Mehta; Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant admits that he has received information after the order of the FAA but states that it is incomplete. The PIO has given certain information but is now directed to give the following information:
1- Query-1: Action taken on the application dated 26/08/2008 until 01/02/2010 in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation Action Date on which forwarded
Application of taken to
received The officer receiving Next officer/office.
it.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the application. Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided. 2- Query-6: If any witnesses were present during the sealing names of the witnesses with addresses will be provided as per the records.
3- Query-7: Action taken on letters of 04/03/2010 and 15/05/2009 regarding illegal construction in house no. 24 & 1A in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation Action Date on which forwarded
Application of taken to
received The officer receiving Next officer/office.
it.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the application. Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as detailed above to the Appellant before 05 July 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 June 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AA)