Central Information Commission
Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000423/12079Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000423
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sachin Sapra
F-18, Back Lane,
Rajouri Garden,
Delhi- 110027
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma
PIO & SE(B) HQ
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Suptdg. Engineer(Bldg.) HQ,
8th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 19/10/2010
PIO replied : 18/11/2010; 24/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/11/2010
FAA's order : 12/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 10/02/2011
Facts of the issue:
Information regarding the following was sought by the applicant:
1) What demolition action has been taken by the MCD against the unauthorized property no. C-1, D-10 and C-10 Rajouri Garden?
2) MCD's Demolition action on the properties is based on which of the following plan/document:-
a) Original sanctioned Building plan of the property or
b) Regularized Building plan of the property,
3) Point out/enumerate for which property are the basis/yardsticks for taking action?
4) For properties, which have no plans on what basis/yardsticks MCD is taking action/intends to take action?
5) Provide date of sealing orders of property no. A-2/39, also provide the file no, sealing order, points sealed?
6) provide the building plan on the basis of which owners of property no.A-2/39 are carrying out fresh consruction?
Is MCD aware of it if yes then what action is taken on such construction? Also provide the information about whether the fresh construction can be allowed in the building u/s 345-A which is already sealed?
7) Property No. H-2
a) provide the copy of deviation booking file of above property. Whether deviation booking was done at the ongoing stage?
b) provide the detail of sealing demolition action taken by the MCD against the same property?
c) provide the copy of the undertaking if any filed by owner of the said property to carry out self -demolition?
d) provide the location of the set backs in the property with their length from plot boundaries?
Page 1 of 4e) whether non-compoundable deviations still exist in the building at Plot No. H 2. provide the details of the same.
8) are restaurants and tyre repair shop allowed on mixed land use streets under MPD-2021? If yes, point out the MPD-2021 clause. If no, then why 2 restaurants at property no.'s A-2/132(Deez biryani) and J-12/38(Pizza hut) and 2 wheel alignment/balancing shops at J-19(BJS TYRE SPECIALIST) and J-9/18C(KIRAT CAR) are operating.
What steps MCD has taken for the closure of such shops?
9) provide the sanctioned building plan for the following properties on whose basis the construction is going on:-
a) H-2 Rajouri Garden
b) F-13 Rajouri Garden
c) C-7 Rajouri Garden
d) C-4 Rajouri Garden PIO's reply:
` 500 fees to be paid for copies of plans.
And information provided pointwise on 24/11/2010 The appellant sent Rs.560/- to SE(B)HQ on 30/11/2010 which was delivered through speed post on 01/12/2010.
First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory.
FAA order:
The case was taken up on 5.1.11. The appellant was present. The PIO, SE-I/WZ was present. The appellant informed that he has received the reply but he is not satisfied with the reply of some points, given by the PIO. The same were discussed during the hearing. The PIO, SE-I is directed to send the revised reply in respect of point No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7(e) and 8 to the appellant within 15 days' time. PIO gave information on 27/1/2011 Ground of the Second Appeal:
1. Reply to point 9 not received from SE-B HQ not received even after depositing requisite p/copy fee.
2. Reply received on 27/01/2011 from SE-l MCD WZ is deficient in following 3 ways: -
a) Reply to point 3 is incomplete because property wise yardstick was to be disclosed.
b) Complete details of existing non-compoundable deviations in property no. H 2 not provided.
c) Reply to point 8 not provided & copy of letter written to town planning dept. not provided.
Submission from the PIO:
The appellant was not satisfied with the first PIO reply as he was not provided with the complete information. Therefore, the PIO, SE-I was directed to send the revised reply in respect of point no. 2,3,4,6,7(e) and 8 to the appellant with in 15 days time.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 21/04/2011:
The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Kamleshwar Dayal, AE (HQ)on behalf of Mr. R. K. Sharma, PIO & SE(B) HQ;
"The Respondent states that though the money for the plan has been paid by the Appellant on 01/12/2010 MCD was not able to trace the payment. When MCD managed to trace the payment it has sent three drawing out of four on 31/03/2011. The Respondent states that the fourth drawing has not been sent so far since MCD is spending a lot of time and money in trying to locate it. He states that the fourth drawing will be sent to the Appellant before 30 April 2011.Page 2 of 4
The Appellant has pointed out following deficiencies in the information provided to him. The PIO is directed to provide the information after taking assistance from the appropriate officers before 10 May 2011:
a) Reply to point 3 is incomplete because property wise yardstick was to be disclosed.
b) Complete details of existing non-compoundable deviations in property no. H 2 not provided.
c) Reply to point 8 not provided & copy of letter written to town planning deptt not provided."
Decision dated 21/04/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The Commission directs Mr. Kamleshwar Dayal to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 10 May 2011.
The Commission also directs Mr. Kamleshwar Dayal to ensure that a refund cheque of Rs.560/- for the fee wrongly taken from the Appellant is sent to him before 15 June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Mr. R. K. Sharma, PIO & SE(B) HQ within 30 days as required by the law. .
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the 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 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. R. K. Sharma, PIO & SE(B) HQ will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 23 May 2011 at 11.00am 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."
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 23/05/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;
Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, PIO & SE(B)(HQ); Mr. Kamleshwar Dayal, Deemed PIO & AE (HQ); and Mr. Vipin Kumar, EE(B-I) West Zone;
The Appellant is satisfied with the information provided to him after the Commission's order dated 21/04/2011, however he is now stating that that the three drawings provided to him vide letter dated 31/03/2011 are older ones.
With regards to the Commission's direction for refund of Rs. 560/- to the Appellant, the PIO & SE(B)(HQ) Mr. R.K. Sharma has submitted that he still not received the said IPO of Rs. 560/- deposited by the Appellant. However the Appellant has submitted a proof of delivery of the said IPO to Delhi GPO through speed post on 01/12/2010.
The plans which the Appellant had sought were the plans based on which he had stated construction is ongoing. The Respondent admits that the validity of the building plan is five years. However, in three cases the sanctioned building plans that were provided were sanctioned in 1973, 1999 and 2001. The Appellant states that he has now been provided with one building plan of plot no. C-4 sanctioned recently. This appears to be a completely irresponsible action of consciously providing incorrect information. The PIO states that the person responsible for this was the Executive Engineer Mr. Sanjay Page 3 of 4 Yadav, whose assistance he had taken. The appellant has shown the Commission that he had written a letter to the EE(B-HQ) on 18/04/2011 pointing out that completely wrong information had been provided to him. The PIO claims that he was not aware of it but Mr. Kamleshwar Dayal AE(B-HQ) who is present admits that the letter was received. Despite this no action has been taken and MCD Engineers appears to be wanting the Information Commission to prompt them on everything.
The Commission therefore issues a showcause notice to Mr. Sanjay Yadav, EE to appear alongwith the PIO Mr. R. K. Sharma before the Commission on 17 June 2011 at 04.00PM.
Mr. R. K. Sharma, PIO (HQ) states that when a plan is sanctioned a copy is sent to the zone which is supposed to ensure that the construction is done as per the approved plan. Hence he states that the building plan would also be available at the Zone which had received the RTI application.
Mr. Vipin Kumar, EE(B-I) West Zone states that the sanctioned building plans were not with him which implies that Head Quarters may not have sent the building plans to him. Mr. R. K. Sharma is directed to send attested copies of letters by which the building plans were sent to the Zone. These will be sent to the appellant and the Commission before 30 May 2011.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. Sanjay Yadav, EE(HQ) and Mr. R. K. Sharma PIO/SE(HQ) to appear before the Commission on 17 June 2011 at 04.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them.
Mr. R. K. Sharma is directed to send attested copies of letters by which the building plans were sent to the Zone. These will be sent to the appellant and the Commission before 30 May 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 23 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ) Page 4 of 4