Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.M. Safique vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 May, 2010

                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Club Building (Near Post Office)
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                     Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000781/7701
                                                            Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000781
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :      Mohd. Safiq,
                                             37/1230, DDA Flats,
                                             Madangir, New Delhi - 110029

Respondent                            :      Mr. R. Taneja

Public Information Officer, & Superintending Engineer - II/SZ, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of the Superintending Engineer-II, Green Park, South Zone, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 26/11/2009 PIO replied : 17/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 15/01/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 11/02/2010 Second Appeal received on : 26/03/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/04/2010 Hearing held on : 12/05/2010 Government land has been encroached upon in by the following structures:

1. DDA Flats, Fence 3, from Lane No. 33 to Lane no. 42, Madangir, New Delhi - 110062.

2. DDA Flats, Fence 3, behind Lane Nos 15, 16 and 17, towards JJ Colony, Madangir, New Delhi - 110062.

Sl. Information sought Reply of PIO

1. Area of encroached government land on DDA Flats, Fence 3, from Lane No. 33 to Lane no. 42, the above mentioned properties. Madangir, New Delhi - 110062 is related to Engineering Department.

DDA Flats, Fence 3, behind Lane Nos 15, 16 and 17 - The report regarding encroachment in the same can be taken from Zone (M.S. II), Engineering Department.

2. What kinds of encroachments have taken No survey has been conducted of the encroached land.

place?

3. Does the Department already know about No survey has been conducted of the encroached land by the above mentioned encroachments? If this zone. Hence no record is available. yes, then provide the following Same as above. information:

1. When did the Department first Same as above.

receive the information?

2. What has been done till now to Same as above. remove the encroachments?

3. If no action has been taken, then what? Same as above.

4. Photocopies of the files and documents to related to the Same as above. removal of the encroachments.

5. Names, designations and contact numbers of those officials who Same as above. are responsible for removal of encroachers.

6. Are such officials liable for Same as above. corruption under Section 13, Corruption Act and Section 217, Same as above. IPC.

7. When will investigation begin against the encroachers?

8. By when will the encroachments be removed?

Grounds for First Appeal:

Unsatisfactory and wrong information provided.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:

Appeal disposed off. Regarding query 3, PIO is directed to provide last 6 months records of encroachment action carried out in the area of DDA Flats, Madangir within one fortnight.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

Same as grounds for First Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mohd. Safiq;

Respondent: Mr. R. Taneja, Public Information Officer, & Superintending Engineer - II/SZ;

Mr. M. L. Khan, EE & APIO;

The PIO admits that no information has been provided to the Appellant after the order of the FAA on 11/02/2010. He also admits that no action has been taken on encroachment since then. The FAA's order has recorded that Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-II/PIO(SZ) was present at the First Appellate hearing yet the information was not sent to the Appellant as per the order of the FAA.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The present PIO Mr. R. Taneja is directed to send the information on query- 3 to the Appellant before 10 June 2010.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-II/PIO(SZ) within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.

He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.

It appears that the then PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.

Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-II/PIO(SZ) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 07 June 2010 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.

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 12 May 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DR) CC:

To, Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-II/PIO(SZ) through Mr. R. Taneja, Public Information Officer, & Superintending Engineer - II/SZ;