Central Information Commission
R P Gupta vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 27 December, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/311963
Date of Hearing : 13.12.2017
Date of Decision : 13.12.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. R P Gupta
Respondent : CPIO
EE(B-II), SDMC
Through: none
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.07.2016
PIO replied on : 10.08.2016
First Appeal filed on : 16.08.2016
First Appellate Order on : 29.09.2016
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 10.10.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 04.07.2016, the appellant sought information regarding SDMC's inaction in demolition of property [at 779/6, Doodh Wali Gali, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110030] even after passing demolition orders. In this regards appellant sought following information.
1. Reason for your (SDMC) administrative or quasi judicial decision of not taking any action against the said property even after passing demolition orders.
2. Letters written to Delhi Police, after 09.01.2015, for providing police force for vacation and demolition of the said property. Copy of all such letters and copy of replies received.
3. Copy of letter dated 24.07.2014 sent to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District under copy to SHO, PS Mehruli, with the request to register an FIR against the owner/occupier of the subject property, Copy of all further communication with the police in the matter of this FIR registration.
The PIO/Ex. Engineer (Bldg.)-II vide letter dated 10.08.2016 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 51. No reason found recorded for not taking action on the said property since 09.01.2015.
2. No such communication found in the file. Further demolition plan is fixed monthly wise.
3. Copy of desired letter dated 24.07.2014 is enclosed. Further police authority has registered FIR vide no. 1232 dt. 25.07.2014.
Clarification/ interpretation /reason cannot be provided under RTI.
Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 29.09.2016 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant is present and heard. The respondent is absent. The appellant filed a written submission before the Commission and stated as following:
1. That the appellant wanted to expose the nexus between the MCD and the builders leading to the menace of unauthorised construction in Delhi.
He also refers to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's remarks on 6.12.2017 while hearing a matter involving illegal constructions in Delhi. The Hon'ble Court remarked it "could consider reviving its monitoring committee that has seized properties of illegal commercial establishments in Delhi a decade ago."
2. That in the instant case he has not been provided information u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act as to why a four storey unauthorised commercial complex consisting of 70 shops built in a narrow bye-lane of Mehrauli, which cannot be accessed by a four wheeler has not been demolished despite the orders passed by the respondents themselves in 2012 and 2013. The appellant is an affected person residing next door to this unauthorised dangerous building.
3. That vacation notice u/s 349 of the DMC Act was also issued by the respondents to the owners on 22.08.2013. Subsequently, sealing was done but only at 13 points instead of all the shops which were also unauthorised. An FIR was filed on 25.07.2014 but approval u/s 467 of MCD Act was given to the police authorities only in December, 2016.
4. That vacation notice was again issued on 21.03.2017 more than 3 years after the issue of the first vacation notice. This time sealing action was carried out only at 9 points against the entire building.
5. That it is clear that no demolition action against the said building has taken place since 09.01.2015, i.e. date of submission of status report by the respondents to the Public Grievance Commission.
Page 2 of 56. That the respondents also claimed before the PGC that it was a pre-2014 property but after hearing the appellant the PGC again issued the directive for demolition.
7. That to dissuade the appellant, a false extortion complaint was made against him but was withdrawn subsequently.
The appellant stated that the culpability of the respondents is clearly proved by their absence during the hearing because they have no defence on the matter. The appellant also referred to decision of this bench on 30.04.2015 on his 11 point query regarding the same property where the respondents were directed to provide the current status of property.
Decision:
After hearing the appellant and perusal of records, the Commission finds that the respondents are repeatedly shying away from providing clear answers to the appellant's queries. In the instant second appeal filed by the appellant, the appellant has referred to the earlier order of this bench and sought clear and precise information with respect to the following:
1. Copies of letter written to Delhi Police after 9.1.2015 for assistance in vacation and demolition of property.
2. Copy of a letter in 2014 sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) under copy to SHO/PS Mehrauli for registering an FIR against the owner/occupier against the said property and a copy of the FIR.
3. And finally, the status report so far of the property in question along with the reasons for not taking any action against it since 09.01.2015 i.e. the date of submission of status report to the PGC.
The Commission notes that on such a serious matter in which allegations have been made against the respondents for not taking any action against unauthorised construction - no one has turned up for the hearing from the respondent side nor any submission received on the matter or for non appearance. Perusal of file reveals that the RTI dated 04.07.2016 was replied by EE (B-II), SDMC on 10.08.2016 in a rather cavalier manner stating that no reasons have been recorded for not taking any action. Beside this, no other communication have been found in the file regarding fixing any other date for further demolition. During the hearing of the First Appeal on 29.09.2016, the FAA has recorded that the information has already been provided and, therefore, the appeal was disposed of.
The treatment of this RTI clearly indicates the rot that has set in the MCD with respect to taking action against unauthorised construction. In the instant case MCD itself has passed demolition orders and is either unable or not wilfully going ahead with the implementation of the same for over two Page 3 of 5 years. The appellant being an affected party has asked for an explanation regarding the inaction. The bye-lane referred by the appellant in his query, is extremely narrow and thus out of bounds even for emergency vehicles to reach. Given the situation where the appellant is housed adjacent to the building, it is his right u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act to seek action taken report and the reasons as to why action has not been taken so far. EE(B-II) in brazen defiance of the RTI Act has summarily disposed of the matter stating that no reasons can be provided that there is no information in the file. The learned FAA did not consider it fit even to adjudicate the matter and merely endorsed the CPIO's reply.
The RTI Act in its preamble lists out transparency and accountability as the two main objectives. Obviously, the CPIO and the FAA feel that they are not accountable for giving any meaningful information to the appellant. This acute lack of sensitivity or commitment to the Act reveals a sorry state of affairs within the public authority.
The Commission directs that an updated Action Taken Report with respect to the demolition notice against the building will be provided to the appellant as well as the reasons for the action not being taken so far. Copies of letters to the police for assistance by the demolition squad, as desired by the appellant in query No. 1 shall also be provided within two weeks of receipt of this order.
Under the circumstances, the Commission directs Registry this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice upon the then PIO/EE(B-II), SDMC Green Park Area to explain as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for causing deliberate obstruction to the flow of information and violating provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hearing of the Show Cause case should be scheduled by the Registry in the normal course. Notice shall be served through the present PIO as well as the FAA to the concerned PIO who held office at the relevant point of time, with an intimation of compliance to the Commission. Reply, if any must reach Commission atleast one week prior to the hearing.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5