Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dushyant Kumar vs Gnctd on 14 November, 2022

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/GNCTD/A/2022/115586-UM

Mr.Dushyant Kumar

                                                                      ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम



THE PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sarita Vihar)
OLD Gargi College Building
Behind Lady Shri Ram College
Lajpat Nagar 4 New Delhi 110024



                                                                      प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing       :             11.11.2022
Date of Decision      :             14.11.2022

Date of RTI application                                              10.01.2022
CPIO's response                                                      Not on record
Date of the First Appeal                                             12.02.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                 Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                 31.03.2022

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

The APIO/SO (Admn.) vide letter dated 18.01.2022 transferred the RTI application to PIO /SDM(SV). Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The PA to ADM (South-East)/FAA vide letter dated 21.03.2022 informed the Appellant to appear before the ADM (South East)/FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Absent The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that no information has been furnished to him so far. When queried by the Commission about the reason for seeking this information he deposed that he had sought this information as the tower is dangerously placed on the terrace of the property mentioned in the RTI Application. He added that there is water logging around this area during the monsoon which raises questions about the sustainability of the building in terms of its foundation which in turn can lead to the building collapsing under the weight of the tower and threaten the neighbouring buildings. The respondent remained absent during the hearing.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission observes that the matter pertains to public interest as it involves a serious issue of public safety which the Respondent Authority is duty bound to address. Therefore it directs the CPIO to furnish a correct and point wise information to the Appellant, redacting the personal details of the third parties, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

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-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 14.11.2022 Page 3 of 3