Central Information Commission
Shri Ashok Sikka vs Dy. Commissioner (South) Mcd on 24 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01699 dated 31.12.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ashok Sikka
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner (South) MCD
Facts:
By an application of 17.8.07 assigned ID No. 1210, Shri Ashok Sikka of NOIDA, U.P., applied to the Dy. Commissioner (South Zone), seeking the following information :
1. Is it correct that demolition notice no. 2594 dated 22.2.2007 was issued in response to which applicant had filed a reply date 5.3.2007 and had attended personal hearing on 16.4.2007. Also, the matter was adjourned for consideration and it was informed that further personal hearing will be intimated only if the matter is not be closed/ dropped and or proceed further?
2. Whether any further notice of hearing has been sent to the applicant and whether any final order has been passed in relation to the above said demolition notice bearing no.?
3. On the dates when the applicant's property was demolished by MCD for five days viz. 23.5.2007 to 26.5.2007 and 30.5.2007 was there any demolition order passed against the property and or communicated to the applicant? Why was the house demolished for five days and other properties remained/ untouched during that period of time?
4. Please confirm whether it is a standard practice of the MCD to pass order of demolition granting 6 days time to the property owners to demolish themselves and it is only in the event of non-compliance with the demolition order of 6 days that actual physical demolition is carried out by the MCD staff. In the present case, was the required compliance done in relation to the following:-
(i) The issuance of first demolition notice/ order granting 6 days time to carry out self- demolition?
(ii) Why demolition was carried out even though the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 2.5.94 remained inconclusive?
5. A list of 21 properties was under consideration for carrying out demolition action simultaneously with the applicant's property bearing no. B-5 W-14 lane, Sainik Farm, New Delhi. In case of number of properties, endorsement was made by the MCD team that the properties were laying locked or no 1 action could be taken for breaking open these locks without specific order to that effect. It maybe confirmed as to which properties out of the under mentioned 21 properties could not be demolished because the main gates were locked or left untouched and why? In case of the applicant's property bearing No. B-5 W-14 Lane, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, lock was broken on 25.5.2007. This may be confirmed from the noting of the record prepared by the demolition team in the presence of the local police.
6. What was the reason for discrimination against the applicant whose property was demolished for number of days (total of 5 days) and even the lock was broken, while in case of other properties, either were left untouched or some very minor/ cosmetic demolition was carried out, leaving those properties largely habitable and useable, where as I was the only person in Sainik Farm ousted out of Sainik Farm where there are approximately 5000 houses?
7. Why the demolition action was abruptly stopped on 1.6.07 and has not been resumed or carried since till date? Is the suspension of demolition action as a result of any policy prepared by the MCD, or any said order granted by the Delhi High Court or any written direction of the Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court? In case the reason is anything else, that may also be rarified.
8. Whether the Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court visited Sainik Farm on 25.5.2007 to 30.5.2007 and assisted MCD staff to demolish the whole house or otherwise out of the 21 properties?
9. What are your plans about the properties, which were earlier demolish in colonies like Sainik Farm, Defence Services Enclave, Freedom Fighter, Anupam Garden, Neb Valley, Forest Lane in the year 1996 to 2000 and have been reconstructed and occupied under the direct supervision of staff of civic agencies/ officials."
This information was sought together with "Copy of photographs of demolition of year 2000 and May 23 to 30, 2007 video coverage of those periods as well between 1996 to 2006 for demolished houses in Sainik Farm and around. Policy of 5000 approximate houses in Sainik Farm."
2In response he received a letter of 27.9.07 from D.C. (South Zone), attaching a pointwise response from the Officer-in-Charge (Bldg.) South Zone, as follows:
S. Information sought Reply given No.
1. Is it correct that demolition notice no. 2594 dated As per order of 22.2.2007 was issued in response to which Addl. applicant had filed a reply date 5.3.2007 and Commissioner had attended personal hearing on 16.4.2007. (Engg.) dated Also, the matter was adjourned for consideration 22.5.2007. and it was informed that further personal hearing will be intimated only if the matter is not be closed/ dropped and or proceed further?
2. Whether any further notice of hearing has been Same as above.
sent to the applicant and whether any final order has been passed in relation to the above said demolition notice bearing no.?
3. On the dates when the applicant's property was Demolished demolished by MCD for five days viz. 23.5.2007 properties J-12, E- to 26.5.2007 and 30.5.2007 was there any 75B, J-238 and demolition order passed against the property 501/12A. and or communicated to the applicant? Why was the house demolished for five days and other properties renamed/ untouched during that period of time?
4. Please confirm whether it is a standard practice As per order of of the MCD to pass order of demolition granting Addl. 6 days time to the property owners to demolish Commissioner themselves and it is only in the event of non- (Engg.) dated compliance with the demolition order of 6 days 22.5.2007 no other that actual physical demolition is carried out by points required as the MCD staff. In the present case, was the per order of Addl. required compliance done in relation to the Commissioner. following:-
i) The issuance of first demolition notice/ order granting 6 days time to carry out self-
demolition?
ii) Why demolition was carried out even though the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 2.5.94 remained inconclusive.
5. A list of 21 properties was under consideration Report submitted for carrying out demolition action simultaneously by layers with the applicant's property bearing no. B-5 W- Committee dated 14 lane, Sainik Farm, New Delhi. In case of 12.6.2007.
3number of properties, endorsement was made by the MCD team that the properties were laying locked or no action could be taken for breaking open these locks without specific order to that effect. It maybe confirmed as to which properties out of the under mentioned 21 properties could not be demolished because the main gates were locked or left untouched and why? In case of the applicant's property bearing No. B-5 W-14 Lane, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, lock was broken on 25.5.2007. This may be confirmed from the noting of the record prepared by the demolition team in the presence of the local police.
6. What was the reason for discrimination against Action taken as per the applicant whose property was demolished 4 layers committee for number of days (total of 5 days) and even the dated 12.6.2007 lock was broken, while in case of other properties, either were left untouched or some very minor/ cosmetic demolition was carried out, leaving those properties largely habitable and useable, where as I was the only person in Sainik Farm ousted out of Sainik Farm where there are approximately 5000 houses?
7. Why the demolition action was abruptly stopped As per 4 member on 1.6.07 and has not been resumed or carried layer committee. since till date? Is the suspension of demolition action as a result of any policy prepared by the MCD, or any said order granted by the Delhi High Court or any written direction of the Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court? In case the reason is anything else, that may also be rarified.
8. Whether the Committee constituted by the Date is wrong.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court visited Sainik Farm on 25.5.2007 to 30.5.2007 and assisted MCD staff to demolish the whole house or otherwise out of the 21 properties?
9. What are your plans about the properties, which As per policy.
were earlier demolish in colonies like Sainik Farm, Defence Services Enclave, Freedom Fighter, Anupam Garden, Neb Valley, Forest Lane in the year 1996 to 2000 and have been reconstructed and occupied under the direct supervision of staff of civic agencies/ officials.
4No photographs/CDs were provided. Subsequently appellant Shri Sikka moved his first appeal on 18.10.07 reiterating as follows:
"I, therefore, again request your good self to send me documents such as copy of Addl. Commissioner's orders, reports, policy, videocassettes and photographs to the address given below, since all 6 officers who have signed the reply have not applied their mind in reading before signing the same."
Upon this, Addl. Commissioner (Engg.) & F.A.A. in his order of 20.11.07 directed as follows:
"On scrutiny of the documents it has been observed that appropriate reply has not been provided to the appellant by the PIO. PIO is directed to provide appropriate information to the appellant within 10 days as per the provisions of the Act."
On not receiving any further orders, Shri Sikka moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"I am appealing your honour to give me relief by getting me the detailed reply along with documents, policy decisions, photographs with regard to my application dated 16.8.2007 from the PIO Deputy Commissioner South Zone MCD Green Park and concerned officers be punished for their shoddy and careless decisions for not replying for the last two months since the month of October 19th 2007. The PIO does want to give any reply since Deputy Commissioner MCD has thrown my family and me out of the house by continuously demolishing my house for 5 days i.e. 23rd May 2007 to 26th May 2007 and then on the 30th of May 2007 without any prior notice. There are approximately 5000 houses in Sainik Farm and my house was the only one to be demolished completely."
This was followed up with a further letter of 10.4.08 in which Shri Sikka submitted as follows:
"The PIO Deputy Commissioner South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi is not sending a proper reply and giving false information. In spite of repeated requests the photographs for the period year 2000 and 2007 (May 23rd to May 30th) for my property have deliberately not been enclosed in their responses. Moreover information and status requested for other 20 properties the policy report for 1996 to 2000 is not being made available either. Further more no response is forthcoming from the concerned authority as to why I was 5 targeted from May 23rd to 30th 2007 without any prior notice when only front canopy, if at all, was to be demolished as per Additional Commissioner (Engg.) MCD report dated 12.6.2007. He does not want to reply to that or comment on it, in spite of my repeated reminders."
Shri Ashok Sikka has also submitted his written arguments on 30.5.08 concluding as follows:
"The Additional Commissioner was requested to kindly intervene in the matter and ensure that my above said Right to Information applications are properly complied with, in true letter and spirit of Right to Information Act, 2005. Side by side, he was requested for processing of complaint to CIC for violation of the Right to Information Act and against the concerned public servants for misconduct in the matter of performance of their official work/ duties, conspiracy with private builders under section 120 IPC, substantive offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act since the First Appellate Authority is also the Head of the Engineering Department of MCD. However, all the efforts of the appellant have proved to be in vain. Hence, it is requested in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble CIC pass necessary orders to ensure that the rights of the appellant under the RTI Act, 2005, are not denied/ side
-traced."
The appeal was heard on 24.7.2008. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Amit Sikka Shri Rita Sikka Shri Ashok Sikka Respondents Shri S.C. Sharma, AE (Civil) Shri D.P. Meena, J.E. (Civil) Shri Mahesh Chand Nimesh, EE (Bldg) Appellant Shri Sikka submitted that subsequent to the directions of First Appellate Authority & Addl. Commissioner (Engg.) no further information has been provided to him nor he has been provided any photographs. He has received some CDs but these are blank.
DECISION NOTICE 6 In light of the above it appears to us that these are two distinct trajectories for disposal of this appeal:
1) Compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority.
2) Providing photographs / CDs of the demolition, as requested by appellant Shri Sikka.
On the 1st trajectory, the appeal is remanded to the First Appellate Authority. The applicant has approached this Commission submitting, inter-alia, that in spite of the orders passed by the first Appellate Authority, the PIO has not complied with the orders and the information requested has not been furnished till date.
From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to the first Appellate Authority Addl. Commissioner (Engg.) to ensure that his orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed, with the qualification that, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, no fees will be charged.
If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and/or recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to the right of the First AA to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers.
7On the second trajectory Shri Ashok Sikka will visit the office of Mr. Mahesh Chand Nimesh, Executive Engineer (Bldg) at 12.00 noon of Tuesday, the 29th July, 2008, inspect the photographs and CDs as available and obtain copies of those desired.
We also find that although the information was sought on 17.8.07, on which date it has also been assigned ID, the response has only gone on 27.9.07 from Dy. Commissioner (South Zone). There is, therefore, a delay of 10 days over the time limit mandated u/s 7(1), even though the DC's Office has actually received the report of the Officer-in-Charge (Bldg) dated 20.9.07. The Dy. Commissioner (South Zone) will, therefore, show cause why he should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 2500/- for delay of 10 days @ Rs. 250/- per day, in responding to the RTI application. He may do this either in writing by 12.8.08 or by personal appearance before us on 22.8.2007 at 10.00 a.m. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 24.7.2008 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 24.7.2008 8