Central Information Commission
Manish Gupta vs Mcd on 15 September, 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/A/2024/139920
MANISH GUPTA .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Asst. Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, City
SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan,
Old Hindu College Building,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025
Date of Decision : 15.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 13.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 08.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 01.03.2024 seeking the following information:
" ी वजय और उसके दो पु सौख और गौख ने घनी आबाद वाले रहायशी !े पता- 1575, रामनगर, बफ& खाना, गल न: 1, पहाड़गंज, नई Page 1 of 5 +द,ल - 110055 म- गल के अंदर SAURAV ENTERPRISES के नाम से को,ड 01ं2स (COLD DRINKS) का गोदाम बना रखा है । इन लोग ने माल- दल ु ाई र2शाओं को गल म- चैन-ताल से बांधकर सरकार जमीन पर अन:धकृत <प से क=जा कर रखा है िजसक? फोटो इस Aाथ&ना प के संलCन है । इन अवैध क=ज से यहाँ के EनवाFसय को गल म- आने जाने म- बहुत परे शानी है ।
AाथG ने +दनांक 10-11-2023 को सूचना अ:धकार कानून 2005 के अंतगत& पी. आई. ओ./ एस. डी. एम (करोल बाग), Mलेटेड फैNO काPपले2स Qबि,डंग, मुंडव े ालान, नई +द,ल -110055 को इस संदभ& म- कुछ सूचनाएँ उपल=ध कराने के Fलए आवेदन Tकया था िजसक? फोटो कापी साथ संलCन है ।
AाथG को APIO/KAROL BAGH का +दनांक 23/12/2023 का एक प संUया SDM/KB/TRANSFER RTI/2023/11661-62 AाMत हुआ िजसम- मेरे RTI आवेदन को PIO, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Municipal Corp. of Delhi, Karol Bagh Zone, Anand Parwat, Delhi-110005 को सूचना दे ने के Fलए हVतांत रत Tकया था िजसक? फोटो कापी साथ संलCन है। AाथG को +दनांक 20/02/2024 को PIO, Asstt. Commissioner CITY-SADAR PAHARGANJ Zone +दनांक 19-02-2024 प संUया 289/RTI/ACC SPZ/[BTS-1D No.323/pc/cs2] AाMत हुआ इसक? फोटो कापी भी इस Aाथ&ना प के साथ संलCन है । इसम- AाथG को A\न न॰ 4 के संदभ& म- सूचना द गई है Tक इन अवैध क=ज को हटाने क? काय&वाह के Fलए ी र व शमा& L1 वाड&-80 और ी नीरज कुमार RC वाड& 80 िजPमेदार है । कृपया इस संदभ& म- EनPनFल^खत सुचनाएं उपल=ध करवाएं।
1. ये अ:धकार [ ी र व शमा& L1 वाड&-80 और ी नीरज कुमार RC वाड& 80] िजन पर इन क=ज / अEतaमण को हटाने क? िजPमेदार है इस क=ज / अEतaमण के ^खलाफ काय&कार 2यो नह ं करते ?
2 2या ये अ:धकार कानून के Aावधान के अनुसार काय&वाह नह ं करने के कारण cVताचर Eनवारण कानून [PREVENTION of CORRUPTION ACT] Page 2 of 5 तथा भारतीय दfड स+हता क? धारा 217 [INDIAN PENEL CODE v/s 217] cNटाचार के उ,लंघन के दोषी है ?
3. इन अ:धका रयो के [ ी र व शमा& L1 वाड&-80 और ी नीरज कुमार RC वाड& 80] ^खलाफ कब तक काय&वाह होगी।
4 ये अEतaमण/क=ज़े कब तक हटा +दए जाएंगे?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.05.2024 stating as under:
"1 वभाग kवारा समय-२ पर अEतaमण हटाने क? काय&वाह क? जाती है। +दनांक 1-5-24 को थाना नबी कर म के सहयोग से रामनगर व उसके आस-पास के !े से अEतaमण हटाया गया है।
2 A\न सूचना का अ:धकार अ:धEनयम 2005 के अmतग&त नह है । 3 उपरो2तानुसार ।
4 A\न सUया 1 के अनुसार ।"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.08.2024, held as under.
"From the perusal of the first appeal & RTI application, the undersigned is of the considered view that the reply furnished by the PIO/AC/CSPZ on 13.05.2024, does not warrant any interference.
2. Accordingly the first appeal stands disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Vipin, authorized representative of the Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Khrab, Assistant Section Officer present in person.Page 3 of 5
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.12.2024 is not available on record.
6. The authorized representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided by the Respondent.
7. Written submissions of the PIO, SP Zone, Kashmere Gate is taken on record and the sane is taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"In reference to notice of the hearing for appeal complaint in regard to Sh. Manish Gupta, Rio 4270, Gali bahuji, 2 Floor, Gali Ahiran, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006, it is respectfully submitted:-
1. Sh. Manish Gupta had filed a RTI which was received in the office of PIO Assistant Commissioner, City SP Zone and entered in the record vide ID No. 41/AC/CSPZ (Annexure-'A').
2. The Department had replied vide letter No. D-92/RTI/AC/CSPZ/2024 dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-'B'),
3. The applicant has filed the First appeal before Appellate Authority, City S P Zone and same was disposed of vide letter No. DC/City-
SPZ/MCD/2024/D-407 dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure-'C').
4. it is also submitted that recently on 20.08.2025 General Branch, City SP Zone, MCD has taken the action for removal of temporary encroachment in the area i.c. Ram Nagar Gali No. 1, 2, Barf Khana, Qutub Road, Singhara Chowk, Rexine Market. Factory Road. Gali Hanuman Mandir, Jhandelwalan Road & surrounding (the site mentioned by the complainantı and removed all the encroachments in the said area. A prevention letter has also been sent to SHO Nabi Karim with the request to direct the concerned beat officer to keep strict vigil at cleared site vide letters dated 21.08.2025. Copy of prevention letter and photographs are attached Annexure-D"
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant.Page 4 of 5
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved in his Second Appeal that complete information has not been provided to him by the Respondent within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that now at the stage of Second Appeal, they have uploaded updated reply/information on the Commission's portal which is also shared with the Appellant through speed-post.
11. The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which is being upheld by the Commission.
12. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of 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:
The FAA, Office of the Asst. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)