Copy of the house building plan was sought - no information was received even after three months of depositing the fee - PIO: unaware of fee deposition; delay occurred due to trifurcation of the MCD - CIC: compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded
1. Further to Commission’s orders of even number dated 5 June 2013, 9 October 2013 and 13 November 2013, matter pertaining to show cause notice was heard once again. It was stated by the appellant that even after depositing the prescribed fee of Rs. 80/–, on 25 May 2012, he was not provided with the copy of the house building plan for a period of three months. It was reiterated by the appellant that Shri Ajay Choudhary JE who is the holder of information provided him with a copy of the old revoked house building plan which had been appended by the appellant to his application which was filed before the High Court of Delhi. Subsequently when a copy of this application was received by the respondents on the directions of the court, mysteriously and suddenly they dispatched a copy of the correct building plan to him on 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. August 2012.
2. Respondents of the other hand stated that they had no knowledge as to from where the appellant had obtained the old building plan and that there was no signature of the concerned JE on the document. Further, it was also stated that respondents were unaware the fact that the appellant had deposited the prescribed fee of Rs. 80/– as he made no contact with them to obtain a copy of the requested document. It was stated by Shri Ajay Choudhary JE that there was delay in providing requested information to the appellant on account of the trifurcation of the MCD in May 2012.
3. All the parties have been heard. Respondents have put forth explanations for the delay in providing information to the appellant and for having provided false information to the appellant in the first instance. It cannot be denied that the revoked house plan provided to the appellant on 11 July 2012 does not bear the signature of any of the officials of the MCD and they have denied having provided the same to the appellant. However the appellant's plea that he had deposited the prescribed fee of Rs. 80/– on 25 May 2012 after receiving directions from the CPIO to do so vide his letter of 1 May 2012 cannot be ignored. It is also a fact that there had been delay in the furnishing of the requested information to the appellant. Commission also cannot see any reason for the appellant to file a revoked house building plan along with his application filed before the High Court of Delhi to his own detriment. Be that as it may, the appellant has been put to great mental and physical harassment and financial detriment on account of the delay in providing the correct information to him by the respondents.
4. Therefore, Commission awards compensation of Rs. 10,000/– to the appellant which amount will be released in his favour within two weeks of receipt of the order. A copy of this order is marked to the Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation so that he can peruse the aforementioned three orders along with the current one and conduct enquiry as to who is responsible for causing this loss to the Corporation and deduct said amount from his salary.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Mohd. Yunus v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation in Adjunct III Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001947