Central Information Commission
Mr.Parminder Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 21 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000291/12066Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000291
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Parminder Singh
180, S P Mukerjee Park
New Delhi-110018
Respondent : Mr. K. C. Meena
PIO & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
The O/o S E -II, West Zone
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 29/10/2010
PIO replied on : 24/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : 13/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 11/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 28/01/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Provide information if Mukerjee Park is an It is a matter of record.
approved colony with an approved layout plan.
2. Whether approved status of Mukerjee Park was ever The Mukheiji Park colony pertains to EE (M-WZ)-
brought to the notice of commissioner MCD or H'ble III. However with regard to the widening of Chand
High court during the proceedings of writ petition Nagar road the final out come of the decision is
(2316/2063), provide me the copy of relevant still pending in the I-ugh Court as on 2010. With
communication/document through which this respect to the earlier status the matter has been
communication was given. settled by the H'ble High Court of Delhi in the
various judgments.
3. Provide me the copy of the single order of the High As per reply no 2
court where they have directed MCD to remove the
authorized or the approved property (with sanctioned
building plans) for widening the roads.
4. Provide under what authority Mr. Meena was Same as above
competent to stop the encroachments and take such
decisions or actions(names of the Officials if any )
5. Provide under which provision of the MCD act or Same as above
any of the other law of the land the approved
properties have been demolished without ant notice.
6. Provide the process through which the extent of the Same as above
encroachment was to be demolished for the
mentioned 10 plots at Mukerjee Nagar.
7. Provide reasons in delay of the demolition work of Same as above
the said properties of the Mukerjee Park and that to
be from last 4 months.
Page 1 of 3
8. Provide the action taken against prop. Of Shyam
Nagar i.e plot No. W74,4A,5,A9, K1 &K81 to 84
falling on the opposite side of the road facing these
10 plots of The Mukerjee Park , along with extent of
the encroachments removed
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Delay in providing the required information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO is directed to give the correct information, as requested by the appellant within 15 days time.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant is not satisfied with the reply given by the PIO stating that the reply is not complete.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 April 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Parminder Singh;
Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & SE-II; Mr. S. K. Mittal, EE(M-II) & Deemed PIO;
"The Appellant has been given whatever information is available on the records. However, he
wants to inspect the relevant records on 04 May 2011 from 11.30AM onwards at the office of the Deemed
PIO, EE(M-II) West Zone, Near Honda Showroom, Peeragrahi, Delhi.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 04 May 2011
from 11.30AM onwards at the office of the EE(M-II). In case there are any records or file which the
appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the
time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records
do not exist."
Decision on 20 April 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 04 May
2011 from 11.30AM onwards. He will give attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants
free of cost upto 100 pages."
Facts leading to noncompliance hearing on 21 September 2011:
The Appellant had sent a letter on 23/08/2011 to the Commission complaining that the order of the Commission has not been complies with. Hence the Commission decided to schedule a non-compliance hearing on 20/09/2011 at 11:00am and directed both the parties to appear before the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during the noncompliance hearing on 21 September 2011:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Parminder Singh;
Respondent: Mr. K. C. Meena, PIO & SE-II; Mr. S. K. Mittal, EE(M-II) & Deemed PIO;
The Appellant wanted information about the encroachment removal which is on the record. The Appellant was asked to inspect the records and states that he was no shown any records of which encroachments were removed. The respondent Mr. Mittal states that there is no record of the encroachments that were removed but states that the encroachments were removed as per the order of the High Court and as per the status report with respect to the properties. However, he again reiterates that there is nothing on the records which shows the exact encroachment or details which were removed. He states that it is not required to have such details on the records.Page 2 of 3
The Appellant states that he atleast wants the copies of the order by which the Nallah was made on the opposite side of the Road giving the copy of the tender, work order and bill submitted and paid to the contractor.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. S. K. Mittal, EE(M-II) to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant and the Commission before 15 October 2011. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 21 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) Page 3 of 3