Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2843
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Padma Jain – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Executive Engineer (Building)-I, Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
CIC/MCDND/A/2024/100610
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: Shri S.P. Dabas, Shri Amarnath Ram
The PIO is not required to create information beyond existing records under the RTI Act, and adequate responses must be upheld.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - The Commission examines the non-furnishing of complete information under the RTI Act in the context of a second appeal related to unauthorized construction. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) The Commission finds that adequate information was provided by the PIO and no further intervention is required. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding unauthorized construction and alleges incomplete responses from the PIO. The Respondent states full compliance with the RTI requirements and the appeal is found lacking in merit.
Findings of Court:
The Commission confirms that the information requested has been supplied adequately and finds no fault with the PIO’s response.
Issues: The central issue addressed was whether complete information was provided regarding the RTI request about unauthorized structure demolition.
Ratio Decidendi: The PIO does not create information beyond what is available within their records as mandated by the RTI Act, and as such, the appeal lacks substance.
Result: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. information sought regarding unauthorized construction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. adequate information was provided by the pio. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. appeal does not warrant further intervention. (Para 12 , 13) |
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/100610 Padma Jain .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Executive Engineer (Building)-I, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi – 110035 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Decision : 16.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 13.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 31.10.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 06.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.12.2023 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
“Kindly supply me the following information against RTI Act, 2005 against NP-78B, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, regarding illegal & unauthorized structure not fully demolition AE/JE Bld-1 opened the seal of the flat (unauthorized) which was sealed by D C Keshavpuram by order No. EE/B/2/KPZ/2017 dt17.11.2017 without visiting the demolition site.
Information required
1. Whether you demolise the substantial past of unauthorized construction still ext.
2. How much time you require to demolise.
3. Restored watetank to its previous position. ”
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.11.2023 stating as under:
“Please refer to your application, ID No. 206/2023/ΕΕ(B)-I/PIO/KPZ dated 03.10:2023 addressed to the undersigned regarding supply of information on 03.10.2023.”
3. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.10.2023 stating as under:
“1. As per available record, the property bearing No. NP-76B, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi is lying sealed.
2. Information in the form of clarification/interpretation does not fall under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Information as 2 above.”
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 06.12.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri S.P. Dabas, AE (B) & APIO and Shri Amarnath Ram, OI(B)
present in person.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per her RTI application and as per the documents available on their record. The FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7. During the hearing, the Respondent informed the present status of the matter to the Commission that the said property is still lying sealed as updated on 26.06.2025 by their office.
8. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Decision:
9. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of complete and correct information by the PIO. The Commission observes that requisite information has already been provided to the Appellant as per her RTI application and as per the documents available on their records at the relevant time.
10. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. Further, the Respondent had informed the present status of the matter during the hearing.
11. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearin
