WEST BENGAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Bhabani Bhaban, 2nd Floor, Alipore
File No. WBIC/RTI/237/11
Date of hearing : 26.05.2011
Shri Balaram Das
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
1) Shri Balaram Das………………………………………………………………….Appellant
2) Shri Bappa Podder…………………………………………………………..assisting Appellant
3) Shri Amitava Roy Chowdhury, EE(C/B), Br. XI & XII &
SPIO (Building), Kolkata Municipal Corporation……………………………….Respondent
4) Shri Jayanta Paul, Asstt. Engineer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation………………,,
Facts on record
1. Shri Balaram Das submitted one RTI application dated 28.08.2010 before the Executive
Engineer, Borough-XI, Building Department & SPIO, Kolkata Municipal Corporation seeking
information related with sanction of plan of a certain building plan and the abutting road width
in front of the said premises.
2. The SPIO furnished a reply dated 16.09.2010 stating that during sanction the width of the road
was verified physically and observation of the engineering Department was also taken without
submitting any documents therewith.
3. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the SPIO, Shri Das preferred a 1st appeal dated 28.09.2010
before the Appellate Authority, KMC which was not disposed of.
4. Shri Das also submitted a supplementary 1st appeal before the Appellate Authority submitting
certain documents which also was not responded by the Appellate Authority.
5. Shri Das then preferred a 2nd appeal before the Commission seeking redressal which was
received on 24.11.2010.
6. Shri Das also filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 5331(W) of 2011 before the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court on which the Hon’ble Court passed an order dated 24.03.2011 directing
the Commission to dispose of the appeal by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and to pass a reasoned order within 45 days.
7. The Commission decided to conduct a hearing on 13.04.2011 to resolve the case and
accordingly hearing notices were issued to the appellant as well as the respondent public
authorities. But on the date of hearing the appellant did not turn up although the respondents
were present. As a result of this and in order to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant
as per direction of the Hon’ble Court, the Commission decided to reconduct a hearing on
26.05.2011 at 1 p.m and accordingly fresh notices were issued by the Commission.
8. The Public Authority was represented by the respondents. The Appellate Authority did not
attend the hearing. The appellant alongwith his assistant were present. The Commission heard
both the parties in detail.
–: 2 :–
9. On perusal of the submissions made by the appellant that he is aggrieved with the action of the
K.M.C. in according sanction of the building plan and allowing F.A.R. on the basis of
submission of alleged false declaration of abutting road width in front of the said building by
one Shri Gautam Dhar Chowdhury. The appellant in his RTI application appears to have
sought for action taken reports on certain complaints filed before the K.M.C. in this matter by
his brother and also sought for the copies of proceedings, notes etc. of the Public Authority in
deciding the width of the abutting road in front of the premises.
10. It was also revealed that the SPIO furnished some more information to the appellant vide his
letter dated 26.04.2011 submitting therewith certain documents being copies of the observation
of the Engineering Department, declaration for road width submitted by Shri Gautam Roy
Chowdhury etc. In this reply it was also stated by the SPIO that on the basis of the complaints
of the brother of the appellant the site was inspected by the Department and the present width
of the road in question was observed. Although the SPIO did not furnish any copy of the report
of such observation to the appellant in his reply dated 26.04.2011.
11. The Commission categorically states that it works under the purview of the RTI Act to
facilitate dissemination of information as it exists on record with the Public Authority. The
Commission has no authority under the Act to either redress any grievance or to look into any
illegality taken place in the working of the Public Authority in sanctioning of building plan etc.
The Commission shall therefore restrict itself to consider whether the information on record
has been furnished to the appellant by the K.M.C. in response to his RTI application or not.
12. The Commission in this instant case observes that the K.M.C. has furnished to the appellant all
the information existing on record pertaining to the RTI application of the appellant except the
copy of the report of observation on abutting road width after inspection by the concerned
Department as stated by the SPIO in his reply dated 26.04.2011.
13. The Commission therefore hereby orders that the Executive Engineer, Bldg, Br.-XI shall
within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of receipt of this order shall furnish to the
appellant the copy of the report of inspection alongwith the observation on the abutting road
width as stated in the penultimate para of his letter dated 26.04.2011 and send a compliance
report to this Commission.
14. The Commission also hereby disapproves the absence without intimation of the Appellate
Authority before the Commission in the Hearing and orders him to submit an explanation for
his such absence within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order.
15. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Date: 01.06.2011 (Sujit Kumar sarkar)
State Chief Information Commissioner, W.B.
No. 1179(3)(Order)–WBIC/RTI/237/11 Date: 01.06.2011
Authenticated true copy forwarded to:
1. Shri Balaram Das, C/9, Rabindra Pally, P.O. Baghajatin, Kolkata- 700086.
2. The Joint Municipal Commissioner(Revenue & Supply) & Appellate Authority, Kolkata
Municipal Corporation, Central Municipal Office Building, 5, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-
3. The Executive Engineer (C/B), Borough- XI & XII & SPIO, Kolkata Municipal Corporation,
Building Department, 11, Baghajatin Market Complex(Unit-III), Kolkata-700092.
Deputy Secretary & Additional Registrar
West Bengal Information Commission