##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/147880

N K Ahuja .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

PIO,

O/o Executive Engineer

(Building), Municipal Corporation

of Delhi, Karol Bagh Zone, Nigam Bhawan,

D.B. Gupta Road, Anand Parbat,

New Delhi – 110005 ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 21.03.2025

Date of Decision : 28.03.2025

Date of SCN Hearing : 23.12.2025

Date of SCN Decision : 29.12.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 14.09.2023

CPIO replied on : Not on record

First appeal filed on : 31.10.2023

First Appellate Authority’s order : 14.11.2023

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.12.2023

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2023 (offline) seeking the

following information:

Page 1 of 7

1 / 8

“1. Please provide me how illegal encroachment is carried at property

No. 21/3, W.P.N. N.D.-8.

2. That mentioned property made construction with MCD by Laws Act.

1957 and take permission from building department, KBZ, MCD New

Delhi-5.

3. Please give me ATR, what action taken by concerned Depts. KBZ.

4. Photo-copy of complaints addressed to Hon'ble DC, KBZ, MCD, DEV

Nagar, dt. 14-09-23 is enclosed for your actions taken and provide

information in details. Dairy No. 3530.”

Not having received any response from the PIO initially, the appellant filed a

First Appeal dated 31.10.2023.

The PIO vide its letter dated 06.11.2023 had provided reply, which states as

under:

“1. Question asked does not pertains to this office, hence transferred to

PIO/EE/M-II/KBZ for further reply if any.

2. As per record available with this office, no building plan sanctioned by this

office against the property in question.

3. As per record no action taken available on record. However, the said

complaint forwarded to the office of EE/M-II/KBZ/MCD for further necessary

action. Hence, transferred.

4. No information sought”.

The FAA vide its order dated 14.11.2023, held as under:

“The case was heard on 14.11.2023. During hearing the SO/ OI(B), KBZ

stated that the replies of the aforesaid RTIs has already been provided

by PIO/EE(B), KBZ vide No. D-827/EE(B)/KBZ/2023 dt. 06.11.2023 for the

points pertains to PIO/ EE(B)/ KBZ and also transferred to PIO/ EE(M)-II,

KBZ for point No. 1 & 3 of RTI application.

During hearing the AE(M)/ ΑΡΙΟ/ EE(M)-II/ KBZ stated that the RTI

application has been received in transfer from PIO/ EE(B), KBZ on

08.11.202. PIO/EE(M)-II, KBZ is directed to provide the information as

Page 2 of 7

2 / 8

sought by the applicant within 10 days. The appellant was absent

during hearing, the appeal stands disposed off.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with

the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 21.03.2025:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar, AE (B)/KBZ, MCD and APIO present in

person.

“The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide

their letter dated 06.11.2023, point-wise reply was provided to the

Appellant. Upon being queried by the Commission, as to whether the order

of the FAA is complied with, the Respondent has no explanation in this

regard.

Upon being further queried by the Commission, the Respondent informed

that Shri Tarun Shankar Arya, Executive Engineer is the concerned PIO.

Order on 28.03.2025:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the

case, and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second

appeal is aggrieved that no information was provided to him by the

Respondent till date.

The Commission further observes that the FAA vide its order dated

14.11.2023 had specifically given directions to the PIO to provide

information on record to the Appellant. Further, it is noted that reply dated

06.11.2023 of the Respondent is not addressed to the Appellant, it means

th