Central Information Commission
Anil Dutt Sharma vs Mcd on 4 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/133633
ANIL DUTT SHARMA .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Executive
Engineer (Building)-II, MCD,
3rd Floor, Near Keshav Chowk,
G.T. Road, Shahdara, Shahdara
(North) Zone, Delhi - 110032 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2024
Date of Decision : 03.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 14.12.2022
First appeal filed on : 21.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.11.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 7
"Non-availability of information on the website of department which are required to be uploaded on monthly basis by Ex. Engineers as per Office Order No. 307/Addl. C.m-I EDMC/2017 dated 12.12.2017 gives impression that there is corruption in the office of Deputy Commissioner. The applicant after inspection of record under RTI Act and in which manner PGMS complaints are closed, created doubt that likely the Deputy Commissioner Sh. Amit Kumar and SE (B) Sh. Deepak Kumar are involved in corruption with the subordinate engineers. As there is no record of action taken was found available against all unauthorized construction/police reports of constructions received in the office of Deputy Commissioner under section 466A and 345A DMC Act, no monitoring and supervisions over the working of engineers and no written order are passed to them. So present application is made to remove doubt of the applicant and if sought information is not provided to the applicant in documentary form then the applicant may take view that both officers are involved in corruption. Thereafter the applicant will make complaints to the CBI/ACB, CVC, and learned Lokayuct enclosing provided information against both the officers in support of his allegations. So the competent Authority may make available sought information. The applicant is ready to make payment to get the documents.
Please provide me information under Delhi RTI Act: (period of sought information is the date when Sh. Amit Kumar had joined Shahadra North to till latest)
1. Please inform the dates when the Deputy Commissioner Amit Kumar Sharma had reviewed and monitor the record of building Department and his date of appointment in the Zone. If yes provide me any record in support.
2. Inform the Monitoring and supervision mechanism adopted by Deputy Commissioner and Superintending Engineer.
3. Inform the name of the officer/functionary whose duty is to maintain action taken record of the properties which information of constructions were received in the month of Sep. 2022 as per section 4 RTI Act and as per office order no. 307/Addl. C.m-I EDMC/2017 dated 12.12.2017.
4. Please inform the addresses of the properties which were inspected by the concerned officer of building Department under clause 2.15.3 of Building Bye Laws 2016 in the month of Sep. 2022 and inform Page 2 of 7 A. The name of those officers who were required to conduct inspection but they abstained.
B. If inspection has not been conducted then inform mechanism established to check the deviations in the buildings which constructions were started after getting sanction.
5. Provide the details of property which information of constructions were received from the police and inform out of which.
a. Notice issued under section 343 & 344 DMC Act.
b. Demolition action taken under section 343 after issuance of notice under section 343 & 344 DMC Act.
c. Total no. of property against which notices were issued under section 343 & 344 DMC Act but demolition action did not take.
d. Total no. of work stop notices issued under section 344 (2) DMC Act.
e. Total no. of properties inspected.
f. Total No. of properties against which sealing orders were passed but did not seal.
g. Inform total no. of police reports of constructions pending for inspection/taking action under DMC Act and name of the officers have pendency.
6. Provide me copy of last 3 minutes of meetings held by SE (B-II) and Deputy Commissioner (Building Department)."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 14.12.2022 stating as under:
"1 No such information is available on record in this office.2 As per point No. 01 above. 3 As per point No. 01 above. Page 3 of 7
4 (a-b) As per point No. 01 above.
5 As per record 129 Nos. of information of construction were received from the various police stations.
(a) Information sought does not maintain saperately as desired by you however 08 Nos. of show cause notice u/s 343 & 344 of DMC Act during the month of September-2022 were issued by this office.
(b) Information sought does not maintain saperately as desired by you however 06 Nos. of demolition action during the month of September-
2022 were taken by this office.
(c) Booked properties during the month of September-2022 on which demolition action has not been taken in the month of September-2022.
(d) 21 Nos. of work stop notice were issued by this office.
(e)No such information is available on record in this office.
(f) As above.
(g) As above.
6 No such information is available on record in this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2023, held as under:
"The ground for appeal was dissatisfaction with the information provided by the PIO/EE(B)-II/SH(N) and therefore appellant has filed this appeal. During the course of hearing, information sought and reply provided by the PIO was examined, discussed with the representative of PIO. It is observed that the information provided in incomplete. The PIO is required to provide complete information sought by the appellant as per the office record.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off with the directions to modified reply as per information available in the office record. Further, if the appellant is not satisfied with the decision, he may file the 2nd Appeal as per section 19 of the RTI Act-2005 within 90 days of the issue of this Page 4 of 7 order before Central Information Commission. Room No-415, 4th Floor, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirika, New Delhi-."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Arun Rawat, Assistant Engineer, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite service of the hearing notice on 06.11.2024, as per the remarks of postal authority.
The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.03.2023, a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.04.2023, wherein the Appellant was informed as under:
"1. No such information is available on record in this office.
2. As per point No. 01 above.
3. As per point No. 01 above.
4(a-b) As per point No. 01 above.
5. As per record 129 Nos. of information of construction were received from the various police stations.
(a)Information sought does not maintain separately as desired by you however 08 Nos. of show cause notice u/s 343 & 344 of DMC Act during the month of September- 2022 were issued by this office.
(b)Information sought does not maintain separately as desired by you however 06 Nos. of demolition action during the month of September-2022 were taken by this office.
(c)Booked properties during the month of September-2022 on which demolition action has not been taken in the month of September-2022.
(d)21 Nos. of work stop notice were issued by this office.
(e)No such information is available on record in this office.
(f)As above.
(g)As above.
6. No such information is available on record in this office."
Page 5 of 7Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that in compliance with the directions passed by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.03.2023, the Respondent has provided a suitable reply based on available records to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.04.2023. Moreover, the Appellant has not attended the instant proceedings despite service of the hearing notice. No intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 90 cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authority had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 3 cases including the present case are listed for today's hearing. The Appellant had filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.Page 6 of 7
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty- five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
Office of the Superintendent Engineer (Building)-II, MCD, Near Keshav Chowk, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Shahdara (North) Zone, Delhi - 110032 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)