Central Information Commission
Mr.Anil Dutt Sharam vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000290, 000291, 000292, 000294, 000295, 000296/18637
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000290, 000291, 000292, 000294, 000295, 000296
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma,
D-129 New Seelampur,
Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Sushil Kumar
PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of Superintending Engineer-I, Shahadra South Zone, Karkarduma, Shahdara, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 31/07/2011 PIO replied : 10/10/2011 First appeal filed on : 23/010/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 15/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 24/01/2012
Construction is being carried out at following properties or nearby these properties.
S:No Property Photo No 1. C-237 Jhilmil Colony 1537 2. C-219 Jhilmil Colony 1543 3. C-186 or adjoin plot Jhilmil Colony 1541
Construction is being carried out at following properties or nearby these properties.
S:No Property Photo No
1. A-91 Phase 2 Vivek Vihar 1531
2. 121 Partap Khand Vishkarma Nagar 1532
3. B-128 Jhilmil Colony 1534
S:No Property Photo No
1. C-150 Jhilmil Colony 1540
2. Plot in front of C block Triveni 1539
Enclave( Opposite C-150 Jhilmil Colony)
Construction is being carried out at following properties or nearby these properties.
S:No Property Photo No 1. 2304 Gali no 5 Bihari Colony 1500 2. Abutting Plot of 81A Gali No 1 Bihari Colony 1502 3. Plot in Gali No 17 opposite Idgah, Bihari Colony 1503 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Provide the copy of notice which had been received from No such information available in the above mentioned plot owners at the time of sanctioning of records of EE Page 1 of 4 building plan for construction and the documents stating that a) Sought information not in records. the building had been constructed according to the building b) As per para no 1(a).
sanctioned plan. c) As per para no 1(a).
a) Certificate of JE in compliance of High Court d) As per para no 1(a).
directions in Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare Organization e) As per para no 1(a)
v. Union of India & ors f) As per para no 1(a).
b) Building plan register and register for watching g) As per para no 1(a)
construction. h) As per para no 1(a)
c) Inspection report which was conducted by JE(7
days), AE (15 days), EE(30 days).
d) Reviewed inspection reports of Sup. Engineer
which was prepared in two months and Dy Commissioner in three months.
e) Copy of notice which had been received from the constructor before 7 days, for commencement of work
f) Fee receipt of Rs 15 that ensure construction work completed up to plinth level.
g) Inspection report of JE conducted ensuring that the construction up to the plinth level is as per sanctioned map.
h) Stacking Charge receipt.
2. If above mentioned documents is not on record then mention Sought information is not available in
under which direction of law their maintenance is exempted. the shape desired by the Appellant.
Provide with the names of the officers who have failed to discharge official duties and what action can be taken against them.
3. Mention the name of the errant MCD official assigned with As per para no (2) the task of maintenance of the above mentioned documents.
4. Name of the MCD official with the knowledge of the above Area JE is designated to stop constructions and name of the official with the duty to stop unauthorized construction in the area unauthorized construction/contravention of the sanctioned plan.
5. What action had been taken on the E-mail dated 31st July sent As per para no (2) by the Appellant informing about unauthorized construction?
6. Inform when the MCD officials got to know about the above Sought information is a clarification constructions and also the exact plot no if there are any other plots under construction.
7. Exact number of above mentioned references of plots. If the As per para no 4 Plot had not been detected or the office does not deal with the confirmation of address then provide with the name of the office whose duty is to confirm the address and empowered to take action against unauthorized construction.
8. If map had been issued for construction of above mentioned As per para no 1 plot the provide me with the copy of notice under section 6(1) of Delhi Master Plan 2020 or otherwise with the action taking report under section 377(4) of MCD act.
9. Provide with the name of the errant official if the action had As per para no 2 not been taken under Section 377(4) of MCD act. 10 Provide with the name of the official empowered to take As per para no 2 . action against the plot constructors and what action is due against those officials.
Page 2 of 411 Provide with the name of the JE (ph no) Architect( ph no and S Faijan Raza JE, Sh DK Gupta . address) and AE who pertain to the above mentioned plots and -9717787756 the exact plot nos.
12 Whether the responsible MCD staff was satisfied under the No such information available in the . assigned obligatory duty that the construction at the above record.
mentioned building was being carried out as per the Hon'le High Court judgment 13 If the request for construction had not been received from the As per para no 6 . constructor then whether the procedure of detection of unauthorized construction and action initiated as per Hon'ble High Court judgment as per available law 14 If not followed provide the name of the officers responsible As per para no 6 . for non compliance with the High Court order 15 Whether the construction at above said plots was in the No such information available in the . knowledge of DC, SE, FE, and AE. record.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO is directed to supply the specific available information, as per RTI application, complaints received of specific date(s) from Delhi police East District with r/o to Appeal No 1238 & 1249 (ID Nos 4169 & 3993).
In appeal no 1239, 1240,1241,1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, PIO is directed to give suitable date and time so that appellant may check and inspect the record, as Appellant requested in his written submission (02 pages) enclosed herewith. Appeal disposed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Impose penalty under section 20 for not providing information within the prescribed period.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. O. P. Ojha and Mr. D. K. Gupta, AE on behalf of Mr. Sushil Kumar, PIO & SE-I;
The PIO has stated that the Appellant has primarily sought information about the sanction of plan for a building being constructed and the PIO has stated that there is no information regarding this. The appellant shows that he had given a complaint about this unauthorized construction in July 2011 and the Police has also sent complaint about the same unauthorized construction to MCD. The Appellant argues that since his complaint was with MCD and the police complaint about unauthorized construction was also with MCD the claim that there was no record of any construction was false. The appellant also mentions that he has informed the Area Councilor about this unauthorized construction and he states that the Area Councilor is duty bound to take action and inform the MCD staff about this as per the laws.
It appears that there is great collusive corruption because of which no cognizance is being taken about illegal an unauthorized construction. The Respondents have no explanation to offer why they gave false information to the Appellant that there was no record of any unauthorized construction. The appellant has also produced photographs of illegal construction. The Respondent states that the JE Mr. Faizan Raza was responsible for providing the false information.
The Appellant would like to inspect the relevant records at a time and date which he will fix with the PIO.Page 3 of 4
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. D. K. Gupta, AE to provide the information as per available records to the Appellant before 15 May 2012.
The PIO will facilitate an inspection of relevant records by the Appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO JE Mr. Faizan Raza within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Faizan Raza, JE will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 28 May 2012 at 4.00pm 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. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.
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 27 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AD) Copy through Mr. D. K. Gupta, AE to:
1- Mr. Faizan Raja, JE & Deemed PIO;Page 4 of 4