Central Information Commission
Mr.Jai Prakash Arya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002815/10268Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002815
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Arya
F-650, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-110083.
Respondent (1) : Mr. M. P. Gupta,
PIO & SE- II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Rohini Zone),
Sector- 5,
Rohini, Delhi
(2) : PIO, DUSIB,
Room No. 8, Punarvas Bhawan,
I. P. Estate, New Delhi- 110002
RTI application filed on : 28/04/2010
PIO replied : 19/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 07/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 05/10/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on : 01/12/2010
Hearing held on : 02/12/2010
Sr.No. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Provide measurement of additional This matter pertains to Slum & J.J.
encroachment of public land lying Department.
adjacent to the stalls by each of the
individual stall unit mentioning the
stall number in each case.
2. How much road over ways (ROW) -as above-
has been encroached (mention also
type of encroachments) by these
commercial stalls by grabbing the
payments and forcing the pedestrians
to walk directly on the road
vulnerable to road accidents.
3. When the encroachments were first -as above-
noticed by the MCD officials
4. Hlow long past such encroachments -as above-
had been in the notice of the
concerned MCD officials responsible
to check such unlawful acts making
inconvenient to the common footpath
and road users.
5. Details of all the officials responsible -as above-
to report, record, check and remove
the encroachments in question, and
who have not done their duties to
save others from punishments
allowed them to encroach public land
for wrongful gains of individuals.
6. Give unit number of stalls which -as above-
have been amalgamated in violation
of the rules.
7. Amount of damage charge recovered -as above-
by the MCD from the date of
encroachment of public land upto 31st
March 2010. (Recovery of damage
charge does any the right/title of
encroached public land.)
8. What honest and proper efforts were -as above-
made by the responsible MCD
officials to remove the
encroachments in question in general
public interest?
9. Such long standing encroachments -as above-
have been made under the notice of
the MCD Commissioner, the head of
the MCD, the public authority. If yes,
please, give the copy of the
intimation letter. If not, give reasons
of not informing to the
Commissioner.
10. Provide sanctioned building plan in -as above-
respect of each unit of stalls and the
present status of building erected in
place of stalls.
11. Details of the action programme to be -as above-
taken, if made, related to the removal
of encroachment and unauthorized
construction related to the stalls.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"The reply furnish by the PIO is unsatisfactory. The PIO was required to furnish the specific
information. The PIO is directed to seek the assistance of any other officer of MCD u/s 5 (4) with
whom he feels the information is available and after collecting the same, supply to the applicant
within a period of 3 weeks."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA's order by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on December 2, 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jai Prakash Arya
Respondent: Mr. M.P. Gupta, Superintending Engineer - II, MCD Rohini Zone.
Mr. R.C. Jain, Assistant Engineer M- II, MCD Rohini Zone.
"The PIO sates that the information sought by the appellant is held by the DUSIB, GNCTD formerly
Slum & J.J. Department MCD. He further states that he had transferred the RTI application to the
said department on 03/06/2010 through Speed Post vide receipt no. ED027589444IN, with
subsequent reminders on 15/07/2010 and again through his office despatch rider on 04/10/2010. He
further shows that on 5/10/2010 the Deputy Director, DUSIB has acknowledged receiving the RTI
application.
The respondent states that it is well established that all encroachments have to be dealt by the
DUSIB.
The Appellant states that as far as queries (6), (10) and (11) are concerned these should be with the
MCD. The Respondent states that he had transferred the RTI application to building dept. but has
been informed that the information with respect to the three queries mentioned above would be with
the DUSIB."
Decision dated December 2, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO, DUSIB is hereby directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant before 25th
December 2010.
Mr. M. P. Gupta is hereby directed to obtain a statement from the building deptt. that the
information on queries (6), (10) and (11) is not available with them and should be with the Slum and
JJ dept. This statement will be sent to the appellant before 25th December 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO, DUSIB within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO, DUSIB is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior
officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The
First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 04/01/2011 at 11.00am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him."
Facts leading to show cause hearing held on February 9, 2011:
At the show cause hearing held on 04/01/2011, neither party appeared. Therefore, by show cause notice dated 21/01/2011, the parties were once again directed to appear before the Commission on 09/02/2011 for a show cause hearing.
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on February 9, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jai Prakash Arya;
Respondent: Ms. Bholi Rani Seth, PIO & Asst. Director, Mr. Jeet Ram, PIO & Architect and Mr. Bal Krishan Kapoor, LDC (Nodal Office).
The Respondents stated that the RTI application dated 28/04/2010 was received from the PIO & SE- II at the office of DUSIB on 30/09/2010. The RTI application was forwarded to the office of Deputy Director (SCP) on 05/10/2010. The PIO & Asst. Director furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 19/11/2010. On perusal of the reply dated 19/11/2010 and on submissions of the Respondents, the Commission noted that the information sought on queries 1 to 9 and 11 was available with MCD (Rohini Zone) and information on query 10 pertained to the Director (Town Planner), DUSIB.
Thereafter, query 10 was transferred to the office of Director (Town Planner), which was received by the latter on 23/11/2010. The PIO & Architect, O/o Director (Town Planner) provided the information as available on record in relation to query 10 to the Appellant vide letter dated 09/12/2010. Certain additional information in relation to query 10 was also provided to the Appellant before the Commission. However, the Respondents stated that information on query 10 along with information on queries 1 to 9 and 11 was held by MCD (Rohini Zone). Moreover, further to the order of the Commission, the PIO & SE- II, MCD (Rohini Zone) has, vide letter dated 07/12/2010, informed the Appellant that information on queries 6, 10 and 11 was available with DUSIB. Given the above facts, the Commission is unable to determine which public authority holds the complete information sought by the Appellant in the RTI application dated 28/04/2010.
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner, MCD (Rohini Zone) is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry and certify in writing to the Appellant before March 21, 2011 whether MCD (Rohini Zone) holds the information sought by the Appellant in the RTI application dated 28/04/2010 or not.
Further, Mr. R. C. Meena, Deputy Commissioner, DUSIB is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry and certify in writing to the Appellant before March 21, 2011 whether DUSIB holds the information sought by the Appellant in the RTI application dated 28/04/2010 or not.
Once the aforementioned statements are received from the Deputy Commissioner, MCD (Rohini Zone) and Mr. Mr. R. C. Meena, Deputy Commissioner, DUSIB, the Commission will proceed accordingly.
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 February 9, 2011 CC: (1) The Deputy Commissioner, MCD (Rohini Zone) (Through Mr. M. P. Gupta, PIO & SE- II, MCD (Rohini Zone));
(2) Mr. R. C. Meena, Deputy Commissioner, DUSIB, Room No. 28, Punarvas Bhawan, I. P. Estate, New Delhi- 110002 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)