O R D E R

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points, as under:-

1. Kindly provide me the unauthorized construction work photographs on the said property, dated 05/09/2022 or before

2. Kindly provide me the photographs on the basis of which notice dated 05/09/2022 was served to me.

3. Kindly provide me any other related documents, which indicates that the construction was carried during the year 2007-2022 on the said property.

4. Kindly provide any complaint made against the unauthorized construction work on the said property.

The CPIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, vide letter dated 03.07.2023 furnished a reply to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 27.07.2023 directed the PIO to provide revised/amended information to the Appellant from the record available with their offices as per RTI Act, 2005.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present: Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr. Mohd Firoz Khan APIO, Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that she had sought unauthorized construction work photographs, photographs on the basis of which notice dated 05/09/2022 was served to her, copy of any other related documents, which indicates that the construction was carried during the year 2007-2022 on the said property, copy of complaint made against the unauthorized construction work on the said property. She said that the information has been wrongly denied to her on under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act 2005. He alleged that the MCD officials had booked their property dated 15.09.2022 as they had complained about Mr. Rajesh Updhayay their neighbour and a powerful man, who was doing illegal construction. Instead of taking any action against him,the MCD officials have instead booked their property to impose pressure on them, so that they withdraw their complaint, she said.

The Respondent denied the allegations and submitted that the said matter is sub judice in the court of law because of which they had denied to share the information. The Appellant clarified that the court has not objected to share the information with them.

The respondent informed that the photographs of the unauthorized construction are not available on record. He further informed that they had even booked the property of Mr. Rajesh Updhayay.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to either search/collect and furnish correct point wise information to the Appellant redacting the third party information, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the personal details of the third parties.

If the CPIO is not able to give the point wise information he should furnish an affidavit to the Commission and a copy to the Appellant, explaining the factual position regarding the non- availability or confidentiality of the Information or quoting their record retention policy, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. In the case of the CPIO filing a wrong affidavit, the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर)

(Information Commissioner) (सूचनाआयुक्त)

Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणतएिंसत्यावपतप्रतत)

(R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राि)

(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)

011-26182598 / drtoic8@cic.nic.in ददनांक / Date: 02.11.2023