Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00343. Case: Col. (Retd) Prakash Goswami Vs Dy. Commissioner, South Zone, MCD. Central Information Commission

Case NumberAppeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00343
JudgesWajahat Habibullah, C.I.C.
IssueRight to Information Act
Judgement DateSeptember 11, 2006
CourtCentral Information Commission


Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C.


1. Col. Prakash Goswami of West Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi applied to the MCD on 21.10.2005 seeking the following information with regard to illegal construction in Niti Bagh, New Delhi:

1. Number of unauthorized buildings with non compoundable deviation.

2. FAR of these buildings.

3. No. of buildings being misused for commercial/non-residential purposes.

4. Number of buildings under demolition, under court orders.

5. Buildings demolished/sealed so far.

2. To this application, he received a response on 17.11.05 stating, "The applicant has sought information from 1.1.86 till date i.e. for 19 years. It is not possible for this Department to supply the information asked for the last 19 years. He may ask for specific information about any specific property, so that the same may be supplied to him." In view of this appellant Shri P.Goswami vide letter of 9.12.05 modified his application seeking information only for 11 specific and identified properties in Niti Bagh clarifying that no personal details of owners/tenants are required but only the data as already requested in respect of these properties. This letter is stated on its top right to have been delivered by hand. No response was received and appeal was filed on 8.2.06 to the Appellate Authority, MCD South Zone enclosing copy of an order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 16.4.96 (in WPC-587/1988) which gave directions to MCD on removal of jhuggies and unauthorized construction. On not receiving a response, appellant Col. Goswami has moved this second appeal. The matter was heard on 8.9.06. The following were present:

1. Col. Prakash Goswami

2. Appellate Authority Shri Parimal Rai,

3. D.C. (South) MCD was granted leave of absence in view of his wife''s illness.

3. Appellate Authority Shri Parimal Rai indicated that revised application of appellant dated 19.12.05 had not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT