Central Information Commission
Kuldeep Antil vs Mcd on 23 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620
Kuldeep Antil .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Office of the Ex.
Engineer (B)-I/PIO, Rohini
Zone, Sector-V, Delhi-110085 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2026
Date of Decision : 23.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.07.2024
Compliance of the FAA order : 23.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.08.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 1 of 8
"The Undersigned applicant is a bona fide Citizen of India and wish to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005. The information sought pertains to the O/o The Executive Engineer (Building-I), Rohini Zone, MCD, Delhi and the undersigned RTI applicant wish to file writ petition before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi regarding the blatant violation of Building Bye-laws at the subject Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 based upon the final report from MCD authorities and the material evidences on record.
(a) Does MCD have approved any Sanctioned Building Plan (SBP) for present ongoing construction at the Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 If yes, then kindly provide the certified copy of Sanctioned Building Plan.
(b) what is the actual FAR achieved in the ongoing construction at Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 at GF, FF, SF and third floor? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site through JE(B) concerned and specify in yds or mtrs.
(c) What is the actual building height built/achieved in the ongoing construction at the residential Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 against the Max. permissible height of 17.5m?
Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site through JE(B) concerned and specify the height in mtrs.
(d) Does front setback of 10 feet is achieved /left in the ongoing construction at the residential Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 as per building bye-laws and Sanctioned building plan? If yes, Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual front setback in feet/mtrs.
(e) Does the ongoing construction at the residential Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 have any excess coverage/deviations against Sanctioned Building Plan at stilt, ground, first, second and third floor? Kindly specify the actual FAR achieved at GF, FF, SF and third floor against the permissible FAR.
(f) what is the actual ground coverage done/achieved in the present ongoing construction at Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 against the max permissible ground coverage of 75% in this CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 2 of 8 plot? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual ground coverage in % of plot area.
(g) Does the owner/builder/occupier of Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 has built any room at the roof of third floor? If yes, then kindly provide the actual FAR achieved at the 3rd floor roof.
(h) What is actual ceiling height achieved at stilt floor in aforesaid property? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual height in mtrs.
(i) What is the actual width of front balconies achieved at GF, FF, SF and third floor in aforesaid property? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual balcony size.
(j) What is the actual size of canopy achieved? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual canopy size in feet/mtrs.
(k) Does the owner/builder/occupier of Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 has extended any balcony/Gl balcony in rear service lane? If yes, Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site and specify the actual rear balcony size in feet/mtrs.
(I) Does the aforesaid Property No: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi-85 have any deviations from Sanctioned Building plan as per laws laid down in the MPD 2021, UBBL-2016 and the DMC Act, 1957? Kindly conduct fresh inspection of property site through JE concerned and specify the deviations in yds/mtrs.
(m) What is the action taken by JE(B) Paramjeet Singh and AE(B) Ghanshyam Meena on my written complaint regarding unauthorized construction at Plot no: G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, Delhi-85 submitted vide dy. no: dated:27.02.24 to the EE(B-I), Rohini Zone, MCD, Delhi? Kindly share the action taken report.
(n) Kindly share the date and time of visit by JE(B) for conducting the inspection of aforesaid property site for gathering the sought information."
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 3 of 82. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 19.06.2024 stating as under:
"3 (a) As per record, the building plan of property No. G-184, Prashant Vihar, Rohini Delhi has been found sanctioned at the end of Architect under SARAL Scheme. The sanctioned building plan of the impugned property could not be provided being 3rd party information on account of private property, which is restricted as per provisions of RTI Act-2005.
(b) As per record, as on date, no such information is available in this office. However, it is reiterated that building plan of the impugned property got sanctioned under SARAL Scheme.
Rest of sought information i.e. directions to conduct any inspection doesn't cover in the definition of information, as per provisions of RTI Act-2005.
c. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b) above.
d. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b) above.
e. As per record, as on date, no such information is available in this office. However, it is reiterated that building plan of the impugned property got sanctioned under SARAL Scheme.
f. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (e.) above.
g. As per record, as on date, no such information is available in this office.
h. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b) above.
i. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b.) above.
j. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b.) above.
k. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b.) above.
l. May please see the reply of point No. 3 (b.) above.
m. As per record, the complaint under reference was received in this office and further marked to area JE Ward No. 53 on 04.03.2024 and further no action taken report is available in the record.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 4 of 8n. As per provisions of RTI Act-2005, such type of information doesn't cover in the definition of information."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.07.2024, held as under:
"Sh. Kuldeep Antil, Appellant, filed an appeal application under RTI Act- 2005, stating therein that he is not satisfied with the reply of PIO/EE(B)- I/RZ and preferred to 1" appeal, accordingly the hearing was fixed for 09.07.2024.
During the course of hearing, point-wise reply of PIO has been discussed with the appellant. The reply of PIO have been gone through and reply furnished by the PIO is found satisfactory. During the course of hearing appellant reiterated that he is not satisfied with the reply of point No. 3(a), in this regard, the representative of PIO was directed to furnish the revised reply conveying the consent of the owner of the property under reference.
Decision:- PIO/EE(B)-I/RZ is hereby directed to go through the contents of point No. 3(a) of RTI application and furnish the revised reply according to consent of the owner of impugned property, to the applicant within 15 days positively.
The appeal is disposed off with the above-said orders."
4. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.07.2024 stating as under:
"In pursuance of FAA's orders dated 09.07.2024, in respect of Appeal ID No. 566/FAA/SE-I/RZ/2024-25 and RTI ID Ref. EE(B)-I/PIO/RZ/RTI/2024- 25/114 dated 27.05.2024, in the case of Sh. Kuldeep Antil R/o. 123, ITL Northex Towers, NSP Delhi 110034 V/s EE(B)-I/RZ (PIO), the reply of point No: 3 (a) received from concerned APIO is hereby forwarded.
3 (a). It is to inform that the sought information is 3rd party information being a private property, which is restricted as per provisions of RTI Act-CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 5 of 8
2005. Moreover, the owner of the Property bearing G-184, Prashant Vihar has also given his consent not to share the copy of sanctioned building plan of his property to any other /3rd person."
5. 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 Anurag Shandilya, APIO and Assistant Engineer (Bldg.)-I, Rohini Zone, MCD, appeared in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.08.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply was provided to the RTI application. It was stated that the sanctioned building plan pertains to a private property and constitutes third- party information, disclosure of which is exempt under the RTI Act, particularly as the property owner has not consented. The Respondent also assured that the matter will be examined through the concerned officials to verify any building bye-law violations and the factual position will be communicated to the Appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant has primarily sought information relating to alleged unauthorized construction and deviations from sanctioned building plans in respect of a private property.
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 6 of 89. The Commission notes that the CPIO has furnished a point-wise reply to the RTI application within the prescribed time. However, a substantial part of the information sought by the Appellant requires the Public Authority to conduct fresh inspections, ascertain measurements, and generate responses based on verification of facts at site. Such queries do not strictly fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the Act does not cast an obligation on the Public Authority to create or generate information or to undertake investigative exercises.
10. The Commission takes note of the submission made by the Respondent during the hearing that the Public Authority shall get the matter examined through the concerned officials to verify whether there are any violations of building bye-laws at the said property and shall communicate the factual position to the Appellant.
11. In view of the above, while no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act, the Commission records the assurance of the Respondent Public Authority. The Respondent is advised to have the matter examined through the competent field officials, in accordance with law, and to intimate the factual position to the Appellant, as assured during the hearing.
12. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of the Superintending Engineer -I/FAA, Rohini Zone, Sector-V, Delhi-110085 CIC/MCDND/A/2024/634620 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)