Central Information Commission
Mrs.Shobhana Devi vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002311/9974
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002311
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Shobhana Devi
H-3/374, Sector 16
Rohini, New Delhi
Respondent : Mr. M. P. Gupta
PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the Superintending Engineer-II Rohini Zone, Sector-V, Rohini, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 09/11/2009 PIO replied : 24/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 20/01/2010 First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned Second Appeal received on : 16/08/2010 Information Sought:-
1. What is the original Plotted area of the Janta/EWS Flats of Pocket H-3, LIG Flats of Pocket H-4, Sector-16, Rohini and LIG Flat of B-2, Sector-17 as per lay out plan submitted by the DDA at the time of transfer of these Pocket/Sectors/colonies to MCD?
2. Whether there is illegal construction in Flat No. H-4/90, H-3/369, H-3/372, H-3/376, H-3/40, H-
3/375, all in Sector-l6, Rohini and B-2/149, Sector-17, Rohini? If so, how much, at which floors and in what shape and size, give full/complete details;
3. Whether "ON GOING" ILLEGAL construction was/has been started/being done at 1st floor in flat No.H-4/90, Sector-I6, Rohini on/since 7.I0.09(as complained by me on the same day at the start of the same); which was later done on 2nd floor and whether the same is "NOW GOING ON"
at the third floor of this flat? Whether the Internal Illegal construction is still "GOING ON" at 2nd and 3rd floor of this flat? And whether the same has been got approved/sanctioned either from DDA or MCD?
4. Do you demolish each and every illegal/unauthorized constructions made/done by the owners/occupiers of flats owners? What is the criteria adopted for demolition of OLD AND "ON GOING"/NEW ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION in the flats/properties of the owner/occupiers whose illegal constructions are reported to the MCD for removal by the complainant? Under which provision/rule of MCD, the complainant's flat/properties is demolished in the first instance and the flats/properties, of the encroachers/misusers, which are quite attached/adjacent to the complainant's flat/property are left untouched, as has been done in the case of me/my complaints and Gargs & Sh. Ishwar Sharma's properties as above?
5. Under whose directions/control and under whose supervision the demolition proceedings were carried out at our locked flat/house(H-3/374)on dated 26.10.09 without any Prior Notice by breaking off two locks, as above?
Page 1 of 46. Whether any list of articles seized before or after carrying out the demolition proceedings has been prepared? If so, what articles have been seized from our flat/house(H-3/374)?
7. Whether our Grill(s)etc. which were stolen/taken by the MCD staff alongwith them after carrying out the demolition proceedings is included in the seizure memo? If so, what is the procedure and penalty for releasing the those articles seized before or after demolition proceedings?
8. Why our articles; grill(s)etc. stolen/taken with them/seized by the MCD staff and why did not the MCD staff do the same in r/o the grills etc. of the flat/house No. H-3/373 which was also demolished by the MCD staff before demolishing our flat on the same day(26.I0.09)?
9. What action has been taken on my complainants dt. 27.10.09 and 27.10.09/5.11.09 against the erring concerned officials of MCD who have not followed the laid down procedure (issuing SCN/Prior Notice before carrying out demolition of our premises/flat not carrying out the demolition of the property(ies)/flat(s)which are found locked etc)and carried out the demolition of our flat with malafide intention but not even touched the above said 5 properties of said complained owners/occupiers, all having illegal constructions in the shape of rooms, full floors(1"
2nd & 3, shops etc. out of which "ON GOING"/'NEW ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE 20.7.09 IN 3 PROPERTIES; H-4/90(ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON 1ST, 2ND & 3 FLOOR IS STILL GOING ON IN FULL SWING/DAY & NIGHT), 11-3/369, WHICH IS ALSO BEING MISUSED, H- 3/372 but demolished some of the portion of our flat(H- 3/374)which was constructed by my Mother-in-Law a long back, in spite of being complainant, after breaking two locks and also stolen some gold ornaments, grill(about 25' in length and 3'.6"
in height), tearing of our newly stitched/purchased clothes, which were spread on the rope in the sun for drying, by fall of bricks on the same?
10. Under what rule/provision of which Act some portion of the applicant/complainant was demolished even before taking any virtual action in respect of .the 5 properties, of the said culprits/encroachers, such as H-3/375, H-3/40 in which illegal/unauthorized construction have already been made and H-4/90, H-3/369, H-3/372, in which QUIT NEW/ "ON GOING"
ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND MISUSE WAS REPORTED MANY A TIMES VIDE COMPLAINTS MENTIONED ABOVE? Please supply the authenticated copy(ies)of such rule/provision of concerned Act.
11. Was any SPECIFIC programme for carrying out the demolition of our premises/flat(H3/374) and of our neighbour's flat(H-3/373)on 26.10.09 was prepared by the MCD? If so, please provide the certified copy of the same?
12. Was any request made to the Higher Police Officers, like D.C.P./Outer Distt. etc. for providing/arranging the police force for carrying out the demolition programme on 26.1009 of our and our neighbour's said flals(H-3/374 & H-3/373)? If so, please provide a certified copy of the same?
13. Who was the responsible officer under whose supervision the demolition was carried out of our said flat No. H-3/374 and of our_ neithbour's flat No.H-3/373? Who authorized him for conducting the said demolition programme without giving any SCN/Prior Notice to vacate the flats/premises? Please provide the Certified copy of the orders vide which he was directed/authorized to conduct the said specific demolition programme of our and our neighbours' said two flats?
14. Why only two flats No.14-31374 and H-3/373(of ours and our neighbours constructed a very long back)were chosen for demolition on 26.10.09 and why the demolition of two adjoining flats i.e., H-3/376(which belongs to the said Gargs Family and which has also been illegally constructed upto 2" floor)and H-3/375(quite attached to our flat and has been constructed illegally/unauthorized upto 3" floor)situated in the same Staircase, was not carried out alongwith the demolition of other 3 properties of said occupiers/encroachers i.e., Flat No.H-3/369(IN WHICH ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN MADE on 20.7.09 ONWARDS WHICH IS ALSO BEING MISUSED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES INSTEAD OF RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE), if3/372(BOTH ALSO SITUATED IN THE SAME STAIRCASE AN!) ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION TOOK PLACE QUITE RECENTLY AS ABOVE)and H-4/90 ON WHICH Page 2 of 4 THE QUITE RECPT/ "ON GOING" ILLEGAL CONSTRUTION AT 1st, 2nd & 3"° FLOOR IS BEING DONE) "GOING ON" PPESETLY ALSO TN FULL SWING(DAY & NIGHT), SINCE QUITE RECENTLY; 7th OCTOBER, 2009 AND) WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED/COMPLAINED, AS ABOVE, BY ME SINCE THEN?
15. Was there any complaint against our and our neighbur's flats from any person? If so, what is the name of the complainant? When this complaint(on what date)was received in MCD's office? When it was marked to the concerned officers to the level of JE from the Commissioner, MCD/D.C./Rohini Zone etc.? What are the Diary Numbers of such complaint from the level of Commissioner, MCD/D.C./MCD/Rohini Zone or addressee of the complaint to the level of JE with each and every remarks/directions by the respective Seniors to theft respective Juniors to the level of JE? Please also supply the authenticated copies of alt such complaint(s) against the said demolished two flats alongwith directions/orders and diary Numbers of the offices of addressee to the level of JE.
16. If the demolition was to be carried out from the top floor, as has been done by the concerned officials of MCD in respect of our flat(H-3/374) and of our neighbour's flat(H-3/373), why the two adjoining flats i.e., H-3/375(illegally constructed upto 3 floor) and H-3/376(illegally constructed upto 2nd floor)situated in the same stair case have not been demolished by the concerned staff of MCD? Has not the MCD adopted the PICK & Choose/Discriminatory Demolition stratcay CONCOCTED WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION by carryin2 out the demolition of only two 1st floor flats out of 4 first floor flats IN ONE staircase. which are all having illegal construction at/upto 2nd or 3rd floor?
17. Has the proper procedure was followed by the MCD in r/o demolishing the said two flats, No. H- 3/373 and H-3/374 of our neighbours and ours?
18. It has come to my knowledge that there was a big farce of MCD officials and police officials who demolished our neighbour's flats, why the obstructions/encroachments in the shape of Window(in flat H-31372)installed in the passage of staircase by Gargs' Family and Bicycle has not been removed by the MCD staff and taken with them after removing the same as has been done in case of our grills etc.?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
1. This office has no record in this regard.
2. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
3. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
4. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
5. This office EE(B) - II has no information in this regard.
6. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
7. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
8. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
9. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
10. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
11. No request was sent by office of EE(B) - II.
12. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
13. This office EE(B)-II had not taken dentitions in this regard.
14. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
15. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
16. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
17. This office EE(B)-II has no information in this regard.
18. This does not come under RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information received from PIO.Page 3 of 4
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No Order Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received from PIO and no order passed by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. M. P. Gupta, PIO & SE-II; Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-II);
The appellant has attached one reply from the PIO dated 24/12/2009. The PIO shows that one more reply was sent to the appellant by speed post on 02/12/2009. A perusal of both the replies appears to shows that the information based on records available has been sent to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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 01 November 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ) Page 4 of 4