Central Information Commission
Mr. Vishal Narula vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 22 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/00692+000867/7536
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000692+000867
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vishal Narula
H.No - 13/86, Old Talwandi Road
Zira, Distt Ferojpur
Punjab - 142047
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena,
Public Information Officer& S.E. II (West Zone) Municipal Corporation of Delhi West Zone, Vishal Enclave Rajouri Garden, Delhi RTI application filed on : 29/04/2009 PIO replied : 01/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 26/10/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 14/01/2010 Second Appeal received on : 15/03/2010 Information Sought:
In regard to : Reply vide ID No. 243 dated 03/08/2009 that action against construction in property bearing No.B1/602, Janak Puri New Delhi has been initiated under Section 343 &344 of DMC Act:
1. What action has been initiated by the department under Section 343 & 344of the DMC Act against the illegal construction work and on which date this action has been initiated?
2. Has the MCD taken any action under Section 466-A, 467 of DMC Act against the owners of Ground Floor and First floor for raising illegal construction in above said property.
3. Has MCD done anything for regular prosecution under Section 345-A and 466 of the DMC Act against the owners who are indulging in illegal construction work?
Response of the PIO:
1. Violation in property No. B1/602 Janak Puri, New Delhi has been booked vide file no.
B/UC/WZ/09/358 dated 06/04/2009 and notice under Section 343 and 344 of DMC Act has been served to owner
2. Till date as per record no action has been taken under Section 466A, 476 of DMC Act
3. No action has been taken under Section 345A of DMC Act
4. The violation of UC in the shape of covering of courtyard by way of extension of room at Ground Floor has been booked by the concerned JE in the aforementioned property.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
PIO directed to send revised reply to appellant by 25/01/2010 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vishal Narula;
Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, Public Information Officer & S.E. II (West Zone);
The RTI application was filed on 24/09/2009. The RTI application has been filed with nodal officer RTI West Zone. He has transferred this on 30/09/2009 vide his letter no. AC/RTI/PIO/WZ/2009/849 to SE-II West Zone. SE-II West Zone claims that he has received the RTI application only on 13/10/2009. Hence it appears that MCD's internal process of transferring of RTI application is very poor. The information was finally provided to the Appellant on 01/12/2009. The PIO has stated that the assistance of Mr. K. K. Sharma, EE(B-II) has been sought on 15/10/2009 and he provided the information only on 30/11/2009. Thus Mr. K. K. Sharma the then EE(B-II) appears to be responsible for the delay of 47 days in providing the information. It is also true that the internal process of sending the RTI application from Nodal Officer West Zone to the PIO within the same city appears to have taken 30 days. This has put the appellant to unnecessary inconvenience and resulted in having to file a first appeal.
Since the appellant has been put to unnecessary trouble of having to file a first appeal the Commission directs the PIO to provide a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the Appellant for the cost and trouble of filing an unnecessary appeal.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided. The PIO is directed to send a cheque of Rs.1000/- to the Appellant as compensation before 15 May 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. K. K. Sharma the then EE(B-II)within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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.
It appears that the deemed 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. K. K. Sharma the then EE(B-II) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 May 2010 at 3.00pm 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.
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 22 April 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DR) CC: To Mr. K. K. Sharma through Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & SE-II