Central Information Commission
Mrravendra Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000936
Date of Hearing : 27.04.2015
Date of Decision : 27.04.2015
Complainant/Appellant : Shri Ravendra Singh
New Delhi
Respondent : Shri S.K. Jain, AE
South Delhi Municipal Corp.;
Delhi
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.01.2014
PIO replied on : 17.02.2014
First Appeal filed on : 26.03.2014
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 02.05.2014
Complaint/ Second Appeal received on : 28.05.2014
Information sought:
The appellant sought information regarding number of storeys permissible, minimum plot area/minimum dimension required for construction of four and half storey building, details of mandatory ventilation, fire fighting clearance under Delhi Building Bylaws, etc. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2014, seeking the above information. PIO in his reply provided point wise information stating that information on some of the points is available in the public domain, on their website and that the remaining points are in form of clarification/opinion. The FAA, in the absence of the appellant disposed of the case observing that the appellant is satisfied with the information provided.
The appellant stated that he could not appear before the FAA and that he had sent an intimation in this regard. The FAA, in spite of dealing with the case on merits, dismissed his first appeal presuming that because he did not appeared for the FAA hearing, he is satisfied with the information. The respondent stated that the queries asked are general in nature and not specific at all. He stated that if the appellant would have specified, information could have been provided. The respondent requested the Commission to allow him to clarify the information sought to the appellant, to which the appellant also readily agreed. Accordingly, both the parties had a discussion, after which the appellant stated that he is satisfied.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties, the Commission concludes that information has now been provided to the appellant, to his satisfaction and no further action is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar