Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Datt Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002408/15669
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002408
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Anil Datt Sharma
D - 129,
New Seelampur,
Delhi - 110053
Respondent : Mr. Tejvir Singh
Deemed PIO & EE(B-II) Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o The Executive Engineer (BLDG.) - II, Shahdara (North ) Zone, Delhi RTI application filed on : 09/03/2011 PIO replied on : 16/05/2011 First Appeal filed on : 29/05/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : Not Mentioned Second Appeal received on : 01/09/2011 The information sought: The Appellant wants to information 11081 Subash park, Plot opp. of 11041 Subash Park.
1. Provide me report which you have receive any request from above mentioned plots owners for sanctioning the land plan for construction. If yes when.
2. Provide me the exact no. of above mentioned plots. If plot has not been detected then provide me report which was forwarded to the local police under section 466 of MCD act the name and designation whose duty by law, office order and by courts judgement cast upon him and provide me information about the procedure of adopting.
3. If report not forwarded under section 466A of MCD then provide me information under section 4(1d) of RTI act.
4. If you found any irregularity in construction provide me action taking report against constructer and provide me particular sections under which normally you have to initiate action against the delinquent constructers.
5. If any map sanctioned for construction of above mentioned plot then provide me copy of notice under section 6.1 as per the Delhi Master plan 2021. If notice has not been received from the constructer then provide me action taking report under section 337(4) of D.M.C. act.
6. If action has not been taken under section 337(4) then provide me the name whose, duties were to take action but failed to do so.
7. Please provide me name of the person, is empowered to take action against the plots I and what action is due against him for not taking action.
8. Who is empowered to take against the officer for not taking action against the plot constructers and what action is due against them.
9. Provide me monthly certificate issued by J.E. under his signature to the effect: there is no unauthorized ongoing construction and/or encroachment on public/government land. (Reference High court Judgment. (Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare Organization v/s Union of lnd and Ors.)
10. If not issued, please provide me under which law/judgment the said certificate was not issued.
11. Provide me action taking report against the J.E. and A.E. for not compliance the order of the Hon'ble High court.
12. In the context of said court judgment, please give details regarding unauthorized ongoing .construction at above mentioned plot.
13. If not, what action is due against J.E. and A.E for dere1iction of duty?
14. Provide me the date and other details about the Copies of this certificate is by J.E. and action taken plan has been furnished to the concerned Deputy Commissioner with a copy to Head Quarters who would maintain records of such certificates.
15. Unauthorized construction is a cognizable offence under section 466 A of M.C.D. act. Provide me the detail which you have sent to the local police for taking action.
16. If 466A of M.C.D. act not attracted against the said plot constructer, Provide me such law there under you have delegated power for giving relaxation to above mentioned plot owner.
17. Provide me the name of J.E. Architect (with address and phone no.) and A.E. and provide me exact no. of the plot.
18. Provide me under which norms you have permitted relaxation to the constructer for not compliance of Clause 7.3.2 of Building bye laws. If relaxation has not been provided then give me proof in compliance of the said clause.
19. Provide me copy of such notice, required for construction of building after sanctioned building plan and before completion certificate.
20. Provide me Information about I.D. reference No. mentioned on this RTI application above.
21. Provide me information about the responsibilities cast upon the Deputy commissioner of MCD if the subordinate staff failed to taken detection or taking action against the unauthorized constructer even though the information already with them by any sources.
The PIO reply:
1. There is no any kind of information of any record about the properly No.11081. Subhash Park, plot opp. of 11041, Subhash Park, Shahdara, Delhi in building department, MCD. So, it is not possible to answer your question.
2. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above. As per office record this office does not deal with such type of verification of address.
3. Answer as per Sr. No. 2 above.
4. Question is not clear. This office deals with conformity with sanction building plan.
5. No notice is received to this office.
6. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above.
7. JE (Bldg.) to DC/SH- (North) are empowered to take action against the plot constructor.
8. Answer as per Sr. No. 7 above.
9. Due to overloading of staff there certificates are not in effect.
10. Answer as per Sr. No. 9 above.
11. Not applicable.
12. Not applicable.
13. Not applicable.
14. Answer as per Sr. No. 9 above.
15. Answer as per Sr. No. 9 above.
16. There is no such type of law.
17. JE Sh. G.P. Jaiswal, (Bldg.)-II AE Sh. V.K. Tyagi, (Bldg.)-II, Shahdara (North) Zone, Architect - Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above
18. Answer as per Sr. No. 1 above.
19. Not applicable.
20. D. No. 2513.
21. This information is not available in this office.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant was received an unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No any order had been passed by first appellate authority.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant is not satisfied with the PIO reply and no order has been passed by the First Appellate Authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Ravi Kant Gupta, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Tejvir Singh, Deemed PIO & EE(B-II) The respondent states that information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records appears to have been provided. 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 15 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU)