Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pawan Kumar Kohli vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 1 April, 2019

                                 के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/151382

Shri Pawan Kumar Kohli                                       ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                      बनाम
PIO, Executive Engineer (B)/HQ-III                     ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
NDMC, 8th Floor, Dr. S.P.M.
Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
Through: Sh. Ajay Kumar Nagpal - EE(B),HQ;
Sh. R K Sharma - AE(B)HQ

Date of Hearing                       :   29.03.2019
Date of Decision                      :   29.03.2019
Information Commissioner              :   Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   30.08.2016
PIO replied on                        :   20.09.2016
First Appeal filed on                 :   14.10.2016
First Appellate Order on              :   08.11.2016
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   21.06.2017


Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant vide RTI application dated 30.08.2016, sought information on eleven points:-

1. Intimate the authority (designation) who is empowered to pass a sealing order?

2. Intimate the authority (designation) who is empowered to issue a show cause notice before passing a sealing order?

3. Who is empowered to pass order of demolition?

4. Who is the competent authority (designation) who is empowered to pass an order of de-sealing of any property?

5. Intimate the competent authority who is empowered to re-seal any property which is already de-sealed for a brief period for carrying out rectification, alongwith designation of such authority.

6. Intimate difference between notice of demolition and order of demolition. Do they mean the same thing/document?

7. How long a property can be kept in a sealed condition by MCD without taking any further action(including demolition action) in this regard?Etc...

PIO/EE(B)HQ-III, North DMC vide letter dated 20.09.2016 stated as follows:-

1 to 11:- For relevant information/clarifications, applicant may refer to the instructions/ guidelines issue in the booklet "Amended Manual of Instructions on Unauthorized Constructions", which is available on public domain: www.mcdonline.gov.in (Link Engineering Deptt.) or photocopy of the priority documents can be had from this office on deposit of requisite charges towards photocopying charges, under the provisions of RTI Act-2005.

Dissatisfied with information received from CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 14.10.2016. Superintending Engg. (Bldg.)HQ/FAA vide order dated 18.11.2016 directed to PIO /EE(B)/HQ-III to provide revised reply to Para No. 2 to 7.

In compliance of FAO, PIO/EE(B)HQ, NDMC vide letter dated 31.05.2017 has enclosed the revised information relating to point no. 2 to 7, which is only a reiteration of the PIO's earlier reply dated 20.09.2016.

Aggrieved by denial of information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant narrates that he is aggrieved by the vague responses provided by the appellant, and he highlights the response against the query number 4 about competent authority for issuing order for de- sealing the property.

Respondent states that apart from reiteration of the PIO reply, in compliance of the FAA's order, copies of relevant office orders have also been enclosed in response to the queries of the appellant thus clarifying the information.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case and averments of the parties have revealed that the respondent has given an omnibus reply enclosing copies of various office orders in response to the direct and specific queries of the appellant. Though the office orders are relevant to the queries, yet a more specific and precise response would have better addressed the queries of the appellant. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the respondent PIO/EE(B), North DMC to furnish a revised reply answering the queries raised by the appellant, in a clear, succinct and precise manner, within two weeks of receipt of this order. An action taken report regarding compliance of these directions shall be submitted by the respondent before the Commission by 15.04.2019, failing which appropriate non-compliance proceedings will have to be initiated. The respondent is also warned to refrain from providing vague responses in future.

The appeal is thus disposed off with these directions.

Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3