Central Information Commission
Rajinder Singh vs Gnctd on 9 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/123727
Rajinder Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO(s):
O/o Executive Engineer
Municipal Corporation of
Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.11.2023 FA : 28.12.2023 SA : 19.07.2024
CPIO : 08.12.2023 FAO : 13.05.2024 Hearing : 08.01.2026
Date of Decision: 08.01.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2023 before the CPIO, O/o the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, West Zone, seeking information as under:
"IT IS INFORMED THAT THE MOBILE CELLULAR TOWERS ARE PERMITTED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. LPAA 572/2011 DATED 30.01.2017 BETWEEN THE MCD, THE MOBILE TOWERS SERVICE OPERATERS AND THE REGIONAL NETWORK OF AIRTEL LTD. ON CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT IS NOTED THAT MANY OF THE Page 1 of 6 CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED WHILE GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE INSTALLATION OF MOBILE TOWERS AT HL 24 AND SL 1 D OWNERS OF HL 24 AND SL 1. SOME OF THE CONDITIONS NOT HAVING BEEN FULFILLED ARE:
1. ACCORDING TO THE SETTLEMENT NOTE MENTIONED ABOVE ONLY TEMPORARY STRUCTURE CAN BE INSTALLED WHLE THE TOWERS AT HL 24 AND SL 1 ARE THERE ON AN INDEFINITE LONG TERM BASIS AND THEIR CONTINUED INSTALLATION IS BEING REGULARISED FROM TMETO TIME,
2.THE TOWERS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED ON PARTITIONED PLOTS.
ACCORDING TO THE SETTLEMENT NOE INSTALLATON OF TOWERS REQUIRES A CERTIFICATE OF STRUCTURALLLY SAFE STRUCTURE WHEREAS NO SUCH CERTIFATE FROM THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED ARCHITECT CAN BE OBTAINED FOR SUCH TYP OF UNSAFE STRUCTURES,
3. AS FAR AS WE KNOW NO CONSENT OF THE NEIGHBOURS HAS OBTAINED WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT ACCORDING TO THE SETTLEMENT NOTE. THIS WE SAY BECAUSE THE HOUSES IN L BLOCK ARE WITH COMMON WALLS. MOREOVER, IN THE TWO SITES UNDER REFERENCE ARE ON PARTITIONED PLOTS,
4. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT BECAUSE OF THE POISNOUS RAYS RADIATING FROM THESE TOWERS, THERE HAVE HAVE BEEN MANY DEATHS IN THE COLONY. IN FACT A DEATH HAS IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE TOWER IS INSTALLED WITH ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED FULL DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN OUR LETTER DATED 24 JULY 2023 ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, MCD (COPY ATTACHED FOR READY REFERENCE).
QUESTON: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ISSUES CONCERNING NON-FULFILMENT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HOW THESE TOWERS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND WHY THESE Page 2 of 6 SHOULD NOT BE DISMANTLED IMMEDIATELY TO SAVE THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF OUR L BLOCK, HARI NAGAR COLONY."
2. The CPIO, Executive Engineer (BLDG.)-I, MCD, West Zone, replied to the RTI Application vide letter dated 08.12.2023, as under:
"In this regard it is submitted that Interpretation /clarification /opinion to the query are not covered under the RTI Act, 2005. The information available in material form can only be supplied under the RTI Act. However, the permission for installations of mobile towers are being issued, as per terms & conditions of new settlement arrived between Cellular Operators Association of India & MCD through mediation centre vide LPA No. 572/2011 on certain conditions."
3. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2023 before the FAA, O/o Superintending Engineer, West Zone. The FAA vide order dated 13.05.2024, after a lapse of over 4 months, observed that the reply to the RTI Application has been already sent by the CPIO and held that- "However, during the course of hearing, you have some additional queries/information/clarification for which you were advised to contact O.I. (Bldg.) working under PIC/EE(B)-I/WZ."
4. Following the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.07.2024 with the following prayer/relief; citing certain facts in the grounds of appeal:
"Demolition or shifting of the mobile towers from the present residential building."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite due service of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, R D Chaudhary, AE & Rep. of CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant. Further, the Commission took on record the following excerpts of the written submissions filed by the Page 3 of 6 CPIO on 06.01.2026, while observing that the contents thereof bridge the apparent time gap noted in the issuance of the FAA's order:
"Further, the applicant had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 28.12.2023 and the same was heard before the FAA on 25.01.2024 but the appellant did not attend the said hearing. Accordingly, the FAA was given one more opportunity to the appellant to attend the hearing on 15.02.2024 but the appellant again failed to attend the hearing on 15.02.2024. Therefore, the FAA vide its order No. SE-
I/WZ/2023-24/D-286 dated 16.02.2024 had 'disposed of' the appeal.
On the request of the appellant, the FAA had fixed a new date for hearing and the same was heard before the FAA on 19.03.2024. The FAA vide its order No. SE-I/WZ/2024- 25/D-305 dated 19.03.2024 had ordered that "During the course of hearing, applicant informed that he is satisfied with the reply, however, he required some other clarification/queries/information in addition to his RTI application. In this regard, if required, he is advised to contact O.I.(Bldg.). The appeal is accordingly disposed of".
But in compliance of the order of FAA dated 19.03.2024, the appellant neither attended the office of EE(Bldg.)/PIO nor contacted to OI (Bldg.)/West Zone. However, a letter was received in the department from the appellant on 22.03.2024 vide which he had stated that "Thank you very much for affording us an opportunity to explain our concern relating to installation of Mobile Towers in our colony. I also submit that I had sent letter dated 09.03.2024. I would like to submit that we have neither received any clarification/information on the terms and conditions specified in the Tripartite Agreement and Guidelines of installation for mobile towers". Consequently, another letter was received in the department from the appellant on dated 06.05.2024 vide which he had stated that "This has reference to your order No. SE-I/WZ/2023-24/D-305 dated 19.03.2024 stating 'During the course of hearing, applicant informed that he is satisfied with the reply'. I would respectfully like to submit that I never said that I am satisfied and these words are unnecessarily been attributed to me. I did say that we need information and copies of documents as detailed in our letter dated 09.03.2024".
Page 4 of 6Further, in reference to the letter dated 06.05.2024 of the appellant, the FAA vide its letter No. SE-I/WZ/MCD/2024-25/D-32 dated 13.05.2024 had replied and informed to the appellant that the reply in respect of your RTI application has already been sent to you by PIO/EE(B)-I/WZ vide dated 08.12.2023. However, during the course of hearing, you have some additional queries/information/clarification for which you were advised to contact OI (Bldg.) working under PIO/EE(B)-I/WZ but still the appellant neither attended the office of EE(Bldg.)/PIO nor contacted to OI (Bldg.)/West Zone."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the prayer made in the instant second appeal is not in alignment with the provisions of the RTI Act as the Appellant seeks demolition/shifting of mobile towers and does not seek access to information. Further, the RTI Application and the First Appeal under reference were also filed in the nature of a grievance petition and the CPIO and FAA have adequately replied to the same fulfilling the mandate of Section 7(1) & 19(6) of the RTI Act, respectively.
8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 08.01.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)