Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Building deviation in Cbi vs . (1)R.N. Rastogi, Ze(B) on 15 December, 2021Matching Fragments
8. It further came in the investigation that M/s Ashoka Builders and Promoters applied for D Form on 11.12.1989 and same was issued on 11.12.1989 itself under the signatures of A1 R.N. Rastogi, ZE (B) and signatures of accused S.B. Singh who got transferred on 12.12.1989 i.e. next day of issuance of D Form. It is alleged that as per Circular No.22/Engg/Estt. Dated 18.11.1972 of MCD Engineering Department JE(B) was supposed to inspect the site and check all the fittings etc. having been completed in according to sanction plan. Further as per Circular No.PSC/EinC/1767/88 from the Office of Commissioner of MCD dated 31.10.1989, wherein it was stated that at the time of issuance of Form C and D building should be thoroughly checked for deviations and in case of serious violation of deviations carried out at the site, Form C and D should not be issued and and appropriate action for deviation should be initiated. So as per the Circulars Form C and D could be issued only when building is constructed as per sanctioned building plan and a certificate to the effect that there is no "non compoundable deviation" should be recorded on the copy of sanctioned CC No.223/2019 (Judgment) CBI Vs. R.N. Rastogi & Ors. Page 5 building plan and with this certificate the case to be submitted to ADC/ZAC for his orders regarding issuance of Form C and D. It is alleged that accused S.B. Singh and R.N. Rastogi issued D Form under a criminal conspiracy in utter violation to above said Circulars.
33. PW22 further refers to file containing certified copies including of FIR No.104016, show cause notice no.99066, demolition order no.96090. The entire file is Ex.PW22/E. Witness states that these documents were handed over by him through memo Ex.PW22/E. PW22 deposes that as per practice in MCD if there is major deviation in the construction, building/ property would be booked and same would be mentioned in the FIR so that CC No.223/2019 (Judgment) CBI Vs. R.N. Rastogi & Ors. Page 16 sealing action can be taken under the DMC Act beside normal action under Section 343 and 344 of the DMC Act. He further deposes that in case of deviation in mezzanine floor, it would be recorded in the FIR and if the deviation would include change in the height and area on the floor, in FIR mezzanine floor would be termed as regular floor. He states that if mezzanine floor has been converted into regular floor same would be mentioned while booking property/drawing FIR. After seeing the document D20 (already Ex.PW7/B) witness identifies the FIR as Ex.PW12/D, show cause notice Ex.PW18/A, demolition notice Ex.PW18/B and also Ex.PW22/G. PW22 further deposes that in the FIR Ex.PW12/D1 property has been simply booked against deviation and there is no mention as to minor or major deviation. This witness also states that as per the Circulars Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B if D Form has been issued it means that there was no noncompoundable deviation existing in the building. PW22 further proves letter dated 12.12.2000 addressed to the IO which is Ex.PW22/H.
72. Accused no.1 further states that he was posted ZE(B) in South Zone form 13.03.1989 to 11.01.1990. Before issuing the D Form, JE had to inspect the site and put the inspection report to ZE for approval. D Form is to be issued for sanitary and water supply fittings and it is not necessary to construct all the floors as allowed under sanctioned building plan. After constructing some of the floors completely, owner of the building can apply for D Form. Accused no.1 further states that as per the rules D Form can be issued if the construction of the building is not in violation of building bye laws and sanctioned building plan. Accused states that inspection of the building was carried out by concerned JE and having found that there was no non-compoundable deviation in the building at that point of time he had put inspection report before him for approval and he accordingly granted sanction.
75. Accused no.3 is Vinod Kumar who was working as JE Building who has also denied the evidence of prosecution or stated to be of matter of record. Accused no.3 states that the report of technical committee is a fabrication of evidence. Accused no.3 however admitted that he had issued show cause notice dated 09.04.1990 Ex.PW12/E and same was even signed by ZE in token of approval. He states that said notice was even written by him. Accused no.3 further states that demolition order was issued at his initiative as he found non-compoundable deviation existing in building against the building plan. Accused says that it was also signed by the ZE in token of approval after satisfying himself. Accused no.3 further states that it is matter of record that he recommended for refusal of completion certificate and same was approved by the then ZE. Thereafter formal letter for refusal of grant of CC was sent to builder/owner on 15.01.1990 under the signatures of CC No.223/2019 (Judgment) CBI Vs. R.N. Rastogi & Ors. Page 35 then ZE.