Central Information Commission
Varsha vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 30 June, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SDMCC/A/2021/617808 -UM
CIC/SDMCC/A/2021/617809-UM
Ms. VARSHA
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Central Zone,
Near Jal Sadan, Shiv Mandir
,Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-24
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.06.2022
Date of Decision : 30.06.2022
ORDER
RTI-I:- CIC/SDMCC/A/2021/617808 FACTS Date of RTI application 04.02.2021 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 25.03.2021 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil Page 1 of 3 The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information 2 point.
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission RTI-II: CIC/SDMCC/A/2021/617809 FACTS Date of RTI application 05.02.2021 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2021 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points, as under:-
etc. Page 2 of 3 Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Varsha present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Attar Mustafa, AE, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that she had sought information regarding a property booked under section 343/344 of DMC Act & a copy of demolition order of the property etc. She further stated that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. She alleged that huge illegal construction has been done on the top floor by her neighbour staying on the top floor of their building which raises the question of the safety of the entire building due to over load caused by extra construction . She requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 16.04.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. He further submitted that the information sought l pertains to third party therefore can't be provided. He also said that some action has been taken against the illicit extras construction.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a suitable and an updated revised reply to the Appellant in both the cases, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 30.06.2022 Page 3 of 3