CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi IN APPEALS NO.

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Date of Hearing : Date of Decision : Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Singh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ IN APPEALS NO. [Shahdara South Zone] Through: Shri R.K. Jain, CPIO/A.E. Building I None for CPIO, Building II CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/KY/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/002429

2 Relevant facts emerging from appeals: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016. No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /09/2015 No reply. 03/11/2015 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 23/02/2016 No order 2 nd appeal filed on

3 /03/2016 No reply. 19/04/2016 No order /03/2016 No reply. 19/04/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 07/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 21/11/2015 No order /10/2015 No reply. 21/11/2015 No order /10/2015 No reply. 21/11/2015 No order /10/2015 No reply. 21/11/2015 No order /03/2016 No reply. 19/04/2016 No order WITH

4 Appellant/Complainant Respondent : Shri Amarjeet Singh, Delhi : CPIO, Building II Shahdara North Zone East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi IN APPEALS NO. Through: Shri Jagdish Kumar, E.E.(B) II/ Shahdara North CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ Relevant facts emerging from appeals: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order 2 nd appeal filed on /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order

5 /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/2015 No 13/11/2015 No order 04/12/ /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/2015 /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/2015 No reply. 13/11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/2015. FA filed. Date not mentioned. No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order

6 /10/ /12/ /11/2015 No order WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Sigh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, Civil Lines Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: Shri Neeraj Gupta, A.E.(Civil)/CLZ Shri J.B. Meena, A.E.(B) II/CLZ Shri Sanjeev Rana,LDC/Building-II IN APPEALS NO. CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/SA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/SA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/000212

7 CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ Relevant facts emerging from appeal: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order 2 nd appeal filed on /11/2014 No reply. Not 19/02/ mentioned /11/ /03/ /01/ /02/ /02/ /03/ /04/ /05/ /08/ /09/ /10/ & 22/09/ /02/2015 No reply. 04/04/2015 No order /04/2015 No reply. 01/06/2015 No order /12/ /01/ /01/ /02/ /05/ /07/ /06/ /07/

8 /05/2015 No reply. 28/07/ /07/ /05/ /07/ /05/2015 No order /07/ /09/ /09/ /08/ /07/ /08/ /07/ /10/ /07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /07/ /08/ /08/ /10/ /07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/2015 No reply. 02/11/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/20 09/12/ /09/ /12/ /10/20 09/12/ /09/ /12/ /10/2015 No order /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/

9 /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /12/ /06/2015 No reply. 24/07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /01/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /01/ /09/ /12/ /10/ /01/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/

10 /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /12/ /08/2015 No reply. 30/09/ /11/ /08/2015 No reply. 25/09/ /11/ WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Sigh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, City Zone North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: IN APPEALS NO. Shri R.P. Gupta, CPIO/E.E.(B) City Zone, North DMC Shri Raghubir Singh, Office Incharge (B)/City Zone CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ Relevant facts emerging from appeal: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order 2 nd appeal filed on

11 /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order /10/2015 No reply. 12/01/2016 No order WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Sigh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, SP Zone North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: None IN APPEAL NO. CIC/YA/A/2016/ Relevant facts emerging from appeal: SNo File No. Date of RTI Date of CPIO Reply Date of 1 st Appeal FAAO 1 CIC/YA/A/2016/ /06/201 5 No reply. 30/07/201 5 No order

12 WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Sigh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, Rohini Zone North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: Shri Neeraj Gupta, A.E.(Civil)/CLZ Shri J.B. Meena, A.E.(B) II/CLZ Shri Sanjeev Rana,LDC/Building-II IN APPEAL NO. CIC/YA/A/2016/ Relevant facts emerging from appeal: SN o File No. Date of RTI Date of CPIO Reply Date of 1 st Appeal FAAO 1 CIC/YA/A/2016/ WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Singh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, Building I, West Zone Rajouri Garden South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: None IN APPEALS NO. CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/002452

13 Relevant facts emerging from appeal: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order 2 nd appeal filed on /03/2016 No reply. 21/05/2016 No order /03/2016. No reply. 21/05/2016 No order /03/2016 No reply. 21/05/2016 No order /03/2016 No reply. 21/05/2016 No order /03/ /04/ /05/2016 No order /03/ /04/ /05/2016 No order /03/ /04/ /05/2016 No order /03/2016 No reply. 21/05/2016 No order /03/ /04/ /06/2016 No order /03/ /04/ /03/2016 No order /12/2015 No reply. 27/02/ /04/ WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Singh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, Building I, South Zone Green Park South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: None IN APPEAL NO. Relevant facts emerging from appeal: CIC/YA/A/2015/ Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order No reply nd appeal filed on

14 WITH Appellant/Complainant : Shri Amarjeet Singh, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Nodal Officer, RTI for CPIO/E.E.(B)/CNZ IN APPEALS NO. CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ Relevant facts emerging from appeal: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/2015. FA filed. No order Date not mentioned /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order /10/ /12/ /12/2015 No order 2 nd appeal filed on

15 ORDER The present appeals are taken up together for disposal with consent of the parties. The menace of unauthorized construction runs as a common thread through all these second appeals preferred before the Commission. The appellant who introduces himself as an editor of a newspaper, states that he is fighting against the menace of unauthorized construction and thus, keeping a vigil on every nook & corner of the national capital. In all the present appeals, the appellant made a representation thereby bringing the various instances of unauthorized construction in the knowledge of Deputy Commissioners of the respective respondent public authority. These representations are brought on record by the respondent. Each of them is a mere replica of the other, except for the description of property. The appellant follows up each such representation by seeking action taken report thereon, through an RTI application. As a consequence, the appellant has made a total of 201 applications before the CPIOs of respective civic bodies of Delhi, wherefrom the present appeals emanate. In the course of hearing, the appellant and respondents are heard at length. The broad issues emerging are dealt with separately. In the considered opinion of the Commission, such bulk RTI applications are to be decided in conformity with the statute and no straight jacket formula can be devised for their disposal. They need to be adjudicated keeping in mind the spirit of the RTI regime. The present appeals are categorized as follows & shall be taken up separately: Sr. Public Authority No of Appeals No. 1 EDMC Shahdara South Zone 43 2 EDMC Shahdara North Zone North DMC Civil Lines Zone North DMC City Zone North DMC Sadar Paharganj Zone North DMC, Rohini Zone SDMC West Zone Rajouri Garden SDMC South Zone Green Park SDMC Lajpat Nagar 09 Total 204

16 1. East Delhi Municipal Corporation [Shahdara South Zone]: The applicant made numerous representations to the Deputy Commissioner, EDMC highlighting various instances of unauthorized construction within the territorial jurisdiction of EDMC. The appellant sought Action taken report on each of his representation through 43 RTI applications. Interestingly 38 RTI applications were made on itself. In the course of hearing, Shri R.K. Jain, A.E. appears on behalf of CPIO, Building- I, Shahdara South Zone and states that only one RTI application by the appellant was received by Building I department. He states that the said RTI application was duly replied. He pleads ignorance regarding the remaining 42 RTI applications & the appeals arising thereon. There is no appearance on behalf of CPIO, Building Department II, Shahdara South Zone despite notice from the Commission. The CPIO did not bother to submit any written submission also. As per record, as many as 42 RTI applications remained unreplied and the corresponding first appeals were not heard by the FAA. A prima facie case of denial of information is made out against the CPIO concerned. There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent CPIO. No written submissions were sent either. Accordingly, the Designated officer of this bench is directed to issue a show cause notice to the then CPIO as well as to the present CPIO, as to why maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- per RTI application be not imposed on him/her. The noticee CPIOs are directed to send their written submissions to the Commission by and remain present before the Commission for personal hearing on In the meanwhile, the present CPIO is directed to furnish reply in all the unreplied RTI applications within 2 weeks of receipt of this order and place the report of compliance before the Commission on the day scheduled for personal hearing. The captioned appeals are disposed of accordingly. 2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation [Shahdara North Zone]: The applicant made numerous representations to the Deputy Commissioner, EDMC highlighting various instances of unauthorized construction within the territorial jurisdiction of EDMC. The appellant sought Action taken report on each of his representation through 32 RTI applications dated The CPIO replied all the RTI applications vide letter dated The appellant preferred first appeal against each reply but the

17 same remained unheard. It is the grievance of the appellant that the FAA remained a silent spectator and did nothing in discharge of his statutory duties. After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission directs the designated First Appellate Authority cum Superintending Engineer II, Shahdara North Zone EDMC to hear and decide all 32 pending first appeals preferred by the appellant through a reasoned order within 4 weeks of receipt of this order. The FAA shall also ensure that a compliance report of the present order is placed before the Commission by The appellant shall be at liberty to approach the Commission afresh if his grievance subsists. The captioned appeals are disposed of accordingly. 3. North Delhi Municipal Corporation [Civil Lines Zone/ Building I & II]: The applicant made numerous representations to the Deputy Commissioner, North DMC highlighting various instances of unauthorized construction within the territorial jurisdiction of North DMC. The appellant sought action taken report on each of his representation through as many as 91 RTI applications. 15 RTI applications were dealt by Building Department I and the remaining 76 were replied by Building II Department. Aggrieved with the reply furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred 91 distinct first appeals. As per record before the Commission, the respective First Appellate Authorities decided a total of 87 appeals and the remaining 4 remained unheard. The FAAs upheld the decision of CPIO. It is vehemently argued by the appellant that the directions passed by respective FAA were not complied with by the CPIO. He asserts that the then CPIO committed wilful non compliance of the directives passed by the FAA and in some cases, furnished misleading information. Per contra, the respondent CPIO states that the directions of the FAA were duly complied with. The CPIO draws the attention of the Commission towards the information furnished [Appeal no. CIC/YA/A/2016/000562]. The same is reproduced hereinafter: Reference subject mentioned RTI application of Sh. Amarjeet Singh regarding his complaint dt in r/o P.No. H 36, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi, the information/reply is as under:

18 All the complaints received are diarised and sent to the concerned are JE (B for inspection of site and initiation of necessary action, if any warranted. As per record, neither any building plan has been found sanctioned not there is any unauthorized construction booking in respect of said property since January It is further informed that for ease of access of information all the details of building plans sanctioned since 2006 and unauthorized constructions booked since 2001 by this office is available on North DMC website and can be viewed at (direct link ) The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO as follows: I have gone through the contents of the RTI application filed by the applicant and it has been revealed that the applicant wants some documents regarding illegal and unauthorized construction at property no. H-36, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi and related information on 03 points. The PIO, EE (Building II)/CLZ has provided the reply vide d.no. 1290/EEB-II/CLZ/2015 dated Since the appellant has not received the information, a copy of the information provided by the PIO is attached herewith for the applicant. It is argued by the respondents that the RTI applications were answered adequately and there was nothing on record except for which was already furnished to the appellant. Admittedly, the details of all bookings done as per DMC Act for unauthorized construction are available online. The web url as furnished by the CPIO was visited by the Commission in the course of hearing and it reveals that the details of all bookings done under the DMC Act are available online. Considering the aforesaid, the Commission finds the orders impugned to be just & fair. However, the act of merely forwarding the complaints of unauthorized construction to subordinates does not serve any purpose and the CPIO/Executive Engineer concerned must monitor the same. The information sought has been furnished despite the unusual bulk of the RTI applications. However, in appeals no. CIC/YA/A/2015/001578, CIC/YA/A/2015/001736, CIC/YA/A/2015/002068, CIC/YA/A/2016/000203, the FAA has not adjudicated upon the first

19 appeals and the same are remanded back to the respective FAA with a direction to dispose of the pending first appeals in accordance with law within 4 weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Regarding rest of the accompanying appeals, no indulgence on the part of Commission is warranted and the same are dismissed. 4. North Delhi Municipal Corporation [City Zone/ Building Department]: The applicant made numerous representations to the Deputy Commissioner, North DMC highlighting various instances of unauthorized construction within the territorial jurisdiction of City Zone, North DMC. The appellant sought action taken report on each of his representation through 15 distinct RTI applications dated As per the record placed before the Commission, all of them went unreplied and the corresponding first appeals remained unheard. In the course of hearing, the appellant states to have received the first appellate order & information on 10 RTI applications after having preferred second appeals. The respondent states that only 10 RTI applications from the appellant were received which were duly replied as per the directions of FAO. The CPIO states that given the bulk of information sought & corresponding first appeals, the FAA took more than the stipulated time to dispose of the first appeals. Upon a query from the Commission as to on what count the grievance of appellant subsists after the FAA decided the first appeal, the appellant was unable to locate relevant documents from his own record. The appellant seems to be confused over the precise numbers of RTI application made before the CPIO, City Zone and has no acknowledgement or receipt to fortify his contention that 15 applications were made. In the wake of foregoing discussion, the Commission finds no reason to disbelieve the CPIO moreso when the appellant himself is not in a position to recall the number of RTI applications or the reasons for disagreement with the FAO. As regards, the present batch of 15 appeals, no further action is warranted at the end of the Commission. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. 5. North Delhi Municipal Corporation [Building Department,Sadar Paharganj Zone]: Vide RTI application dated , the appellant sought action taken upon his representation against the alleged instances of unauthorized

20 construction within the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer (Building Dept.) Sadar Paharganj Zone, North DMC. The CPIO did not reply and the corresponding first appeal remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission. The appellant is present and heard. The respondent remained absent despite notice. Upon a perusal of record, a prima facie case of denial of information is made out against the CPIO. Accordingly, the Designated Officer of this bench is directed to issue a show cause for maximum penalty to the then CPIO through the resent CPIO. Written submission, if any should reach the Commission by The noticee shall remain present before the Commission on for personal hearing. In the meanwhile, the CPIO is directed to furnish reply to the RTI application dated within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 6. North DMC [Building Department,Rohini Zone]: Vide RTI application dated , the appellant sought action taken upon his representations against the alleged instance of unauthorized construction within the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer (Building Dept. I) Rohini Zone, North DMC. The CPIO furnished reply on The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO vide order dated Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission. Both parties are present & heard. Upon a perusal of record, the Commission finds the reply to be satisfactory and no further action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 7. South Delhi Municipal Corporation [Building Dept.,Rajouri Garden]: Vide 10 RTI applications dated & another dated , the appellant sought action taken upon his representations against the alleged instances of unauthorized construction within the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer (Building Dept. I) West Zone, SDMC. The CPIO did not reply to 4 RTI applications but replied the rest. The FAA did not hear the first appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.

21 The appellant is present and heard. The respondent remained absent despite notice. Upon a perusal of record, a prima facie case of denial of information is made out against the CPIO. Accordingly, the Designated Officer of this bench is directed to issue a show cause for maximum penalty to the then CPIO through the resent CPIO. Written submission, if any should reach the Commission by The noticee shall remain present before the Commission on for personal hearing In the meanwhile, the CPIO is directed to furnish reply in all the unreplied RTI applications dated within 10days of receipt of this order and send a compliance report to the Commission by Decision is reserved on the present batch of appeals. 8. South Delhi Municipal Corporation [South Zone, Green Park]: Vide RTI application dated , the appellant sought action taken upon his representation against the alleged instance of unauthorized construction within the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer (Building Dept. I) South Zone, SDMC. The CPIO did not reply. The FAA furnished information vide order dated Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission. The appellant is present and heard. The appellant states to be satisfied with the information. His only grievance is with respect to the delay in furnishing the information. The respondent is absent despite notice. Upon a perusal of record, the Commission finds the reply to be satisfactory and no further action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 9. South Delhi Municipal Corporation [Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar]: The applicant made numerous representations to the Deputy Commissioner, SDMC highlighting various instances of unauthorized construction at Defence Colony & other localities within the territorial jurisdiction of City Zone, North DMC. The appellant sought action taken report on each of his representation through 09 distinct RTI applications dated As per the record placed before the Commission, all of them went duly replied by the CPIO. The corresponding first appeals remained unheard. In the course of hearing, the CPIO states that the RTI applications were replied adequately. It is submitted by the CPIO that the defence colony is a

22 plotted area and as such most of the instances of unauthorized construction highlighted by the appellant vide his representations were found to be incorrect upon field visits by J.E. concerned. He states that minor repair & maintenance works such as change in flooring material & whitewashing does not amount to unauthorized construction but the appellant reports all such incidents to the civic authorities and creates undue burden on the limited resources of the public authority by seeking reports on such frivolous complaints. Upon perusal of record, the Commission finds the reply furnished by the CPIO against all the RTI applications to be adequate. No further action is warranted on the part of the Commission. Accordingly, the present batch of 9 appeals is dismissed. Post Script: A. Locus standi of the appellant. It is stated by the respondents that the appellant is a habitual information seeker. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant, who is a resident of Kashmere Gate area, is not an affected party in the strict sense, of alleged unauthorized construction at other various localities of Delhi. It is sought to be argued by the respondents that the appellant operates in a professional manner and there seems no public interest in seeking such information. Upon a query from the Commission as to how the appellant collates the information regarding the construction activities across Delhi, the appellant states to be receiving inputs through his team which keeps on inspecting various localities. It is the contention of the respondents that the appellant is not acting pro bono publico inasmuch as only residential buildings form subject matter of his grievances. The appellant states that the poor & marginalized sections of the society are treated adversely when it comes to the question of initiating action against unauthorized construction. The Commission disagrees with the objection of the respondents on the issue of locus standi of the appellant. In view of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005; an applicant seeking information is not required to state reasons for seeking information. The appellant states to be seeking information in furtherance of public interest.

23 B. Voluminous Information not being maintained in the form sought. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent civic bodies have failed to adhere to the word of law regulating construction of buildings in Delhi. He alleges that the officials entrusted with the duty to check unauthorized construction suo motu, are not acting on his specific complaints highlighting the same. To buttress his contention, he draws the attention of the Commission towards the appeals wherein the East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahdara South Zone is arrayed as respondent. The Commission notes that none of the RTI application was replied to and the respective first appeals remained unheard. He states that the obstructionist attitude of the CPIO as well as FAA could be inferred from their inaction. It is the contention advanced by the appellant that complete information mentioning action taken against unauthorized constructions was not revealed by CPIOs. He highlights that in some instances, the CPIOs have informed that no action has been taken upon his complaints and the respective FAAs upheld such decisions. On the other hand, a joint prayer is made on behalf of the respondents that the appellant makes RTI applications en masse and as such, it become very difficult to furnish reply within the statutory time frame. As a testimony, the respondent draws the attention of the Commission towards the respective dates of RTI applications made by the appellant. The Commission notes that on many occasions, the appellant made dozens & scores of applications on a single day. It is stated by the CPIOs present during the hearing that any specific complaint highlighting unauthorized construction is put up before the Executive Engineer of the zone and is thereafter marked to the concerned area Junior Engineer for carrying out field inspection & taking appropriate steps. It is stated that if any instance of unauthorized construction is made out, a work stop notice is issued & the building is booked as per the DMC Act. The respondents strenuously assert that due to acute shortage of staff, it becomes very difficult to take prompt action on unauthorized construction. It is suggested that in most instances, the building owners move application for regularization and thus, the penal proceedings remain halted till the application is decided. The resistance put forth by people, lack of availability of Police personnel for support in carrying out demolition are other important factors involved which offer stiff

24 resistance in carrying out the mandate of law. The Commission is quite alive of the magnitude of the problem. The respondents state to be working under tremendous pressure being cast by habitual information seekers. The acute staff shortage is stated to be an aggravating factor. It is states that the information sought is not compiled in the form sought and the efforts to collate the same result in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this ground alone, the respondents make a forceful plea to discard the present appeals under Section 7(9). The right to information is a cherished & formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry. The RTI tool is meant to be use diligently. Though the legislature has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the Right to seek Information, but the same is inherent. As the old age wisdom suggests, excess of anything is bad. The preamble & the relevant part of the object of the RTI Act is reproduced hereinafter: to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. [Emphasis supplied] Thus, in the collective wisdom of legislature, the expression practical regime was employed to act as a guiding light while reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying object beneath its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercise with responsibility. Reckless exercise of right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. In the facts of the present appeals, the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc is not in consonance with the object of the statute. The Commission derives force from the ratio expounded by the Hon ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. [MANU/SC/0932/2011]. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinafter: The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting

25 and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties. Objects despite being pious get ridiculed if achieved through improper means. The Commission appreciates the concern exhibited by the appellant for checking the menace of unauthorized construction however finds the means adopted for the same to be avoidable. Filing a series of RTI applications and flooding the CPIOs with such queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. This Commission being creature of the RTI Act is duty bound to guard the ethos propounded by the statute. Under the circumstances, delay in replying to the RTI queries is condoned. Presently, the Commission is discharging its adjudicatory work through 10 benches and still the average waiting time before an appellant is heard in second appeal is more than one year. As rightly said, justice delayed is justice denied. Timely dispensation of justice is the foremost essential of institutional justice. The expression citizens as occurring in the preamble is employed in plural sense thereby reflecting the conferment of a collective right upon the citizens of the nation. A single person cannot usurp a collective right to the peril of all others having an identical right. Could a person be allowed to make indiscriminate & unchecked second appeals so as to clog the system of adjudication itself to the detriment of others? Wouldn t it be a criminal waste of time & resources of the Commission which has the obligation to cater to thousands of genuine information seekers facing resistance? Should this Commission remain a mute spectator to the menace of reckless litigation created in name of checking the menace of unauthorized construction? Can person seeking information in bulk be allowed to eclipse the right of other information seekers? The answer is plainly negative. The registry is directed that any further appeal by the appellant herein shall not be listed for hearing before this bench before January (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner

26 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (R.P.Grover) Designated Officer