The DDA extended the validity of the building plan of a hospital, unknowingly accepting its authority over that area and was thus responsible to provide information under the RTI Act. This is the 72nd in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, advised the applicant to file his first appeal before the other public authority, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) since it had accepted its authority for regulating building activities in that particular area.

While giving this important judgement on 24 September 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “...it appears that DDA unknowingly is expected to regulate the activity of this hospital. The appellant is advised to file a first appeal with the DDA in this matter.”

Delhi resident Rajesh H Singh, on 14 February 2009, sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the PIO of the Executive Engineer (B)-II in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). He sought information regarding a hospital building in Rohini zone. Here is the information he sought and the reply given by the PIO on 17 April 2009...

(1) The management has extended the hospital building to the area meant for a ramp and is operating a physiotherapy unit in that area:

(i) Whether any inspection has been carried out by the MCD at the premises of the hospital.

             (ii) Whether any violation as above was found by MCD.

             (iii) Whether the MCD has taken any action in this regard.       

PIO's reply: No building plan has been sanctioned from the office of EE (B)-II/RZ, however, building activities of the said area is being looked after by DDA.

(2) The management is running two canteens—one has been constructed over the water tank and the second one is near the out-patient department:

(i) Whether any violation with respect to the above has been brought to the notice of MCD.

             (ii) Whether the MCD has been taken any action on this issue.

PIO's reply: As above

(3) The hospital is running a parking lot inside the hospital, which has been given on contract and parking charges are collected claiming that the same is an MCD parking:

(i) Whether any violation with respect to the above has been brought to the notice of the MCD.

            (ii) Whether the MCD has been taken any action on this issue.         

PIO's reply: As above.

Claiming that the PIO had not provided information, Singh, then filed his first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), while disposing the appeal, directed the PIO to furnish a copy of reply given on 17 April 2009 to Singh within seven days.

Singh then approached the CIC with his second appeal. In the appeal he said, the MCD has taken the stand that the area in which the hospital building stand belongs to the DDA whereas the DDA has claimed that the area belongs to the MCD.

During the hearing, the PIO stated that as is the case with lot of areas in Delhi, there was actually the lack of clarity about who has the authority to regulate the building activities in this area. The PIO claimed that the authority to deal with sanction of plan as well as parking area lies with DDA and hence they have transferred the RTI to DDA on 17 April 2009.

Singh, then informed the CIC that an application to DDA on the same matter has elicited the information on 8 June 2009 that DDA does not have in control over activities in this area.

The PIO of MCD then showed a letter to the CIC in which the DDA had extended the validity of building plan of the said hospital on 5 March 2009.

Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that due to this letter, it appears that the DDA unknowingly was expected to regulate the activity of the hospital.

While allowing the appeal, he said the RTI application had been transferred to the DDA and advised the applicant (Singh) to file his first appeal with the DDA.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001892/4929

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/SG-24092009-14.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001892

Appellant                                            : Rajesh H. Singh

                                                                Delhi-110095

Respondent                                       : Rakesh Ailawadi

                                                              Public Information Officer,

                                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi

                                                             O/o the Executive Engineer (B)-II

                                                            Rohini Zone: Sector-5

                                                            Delhi-110085