Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. What action had been taken on the E-mail dated 31st July sent by the Appellant As per para no (2) informing about unauthorized construction?

6. Inform when the MCD officials got to know about the above constructions and Sought information is a also the exact plot no if there are any other plots under construction. clarification

7. Exact number of above mentioned references of plots. If the Plot had not been As per para no 4 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.

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 on 27 April 2012:
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."

7. That the action of the J.E. attracts the penal provisions of Sec. 20(1) and it is fit case to impose the penalty upon the J.E. Fazan Raza."

The Appellant is seeking various points in which there is no information available on the record and it would require the PIO to determine various matters which is not authorized to do nor expected under RTI.

The Commission however directs the Respondent Mr. D. K. Gupta, AE to provide the information point-wise before 30 June 2012.

The Commission asked Mr. Faizan Raza, JE & Deemed PIO to explain why he has not given the information earlier. He states that unauthorized construction has been booked but he has not provided the information. This is not completely true and from the way he has been evading giving the information it appears that there is collusion to ensure that unauthorized construction can be completed and afterwards it can be claimed that the construction are old and occupied. He has given written submissions without explaining why he did not provide the information earlier. The information provided by him on 31/05/2012 gives some of the information regarding the properties which shows that some of the properties have been booked for unauthorized construction on 31/05/2012.