Appeal Under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

ANNEXURE-“B” [See Rule 5(1)]

Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

From: Satish M. Talnikar, D-701, Kalpataru Arcade CHS, Plot-230, Sector-4, New Panvel-410206. Ph. 9869359073, 22948933.

To: State Public Information Appellate Authority, 1st floor, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400032.

(1) Full Name of the Appellant: Satish M. Talnikar

(2) Address: D-701, Kalpataru Aracde CHS, Plot-230, Sector-4, New Panvel- 410206. Ph.: 9869359073, 22948933

(3) Particulars of the State Public: As per the copy of application Information Officer attached herewith

(4) Date of receipt of the Order 24.1.2009. appealed against (if order passed)

(5) Last date for filing the appeal: 23rd February 2009

(6) Grounds for appeal: As per the annexure enclosed.

(7) Particulars of information: As per the enclosed annexure

Place: New Panvel Date: 29th January 2009 (Satish M. Talnikar). Appellant Encl: 1. Copy of the Order dated 16.1.2009 of the SPIO, Annexure containing grounds of appeal ANNEXURE

Grounds of Appeal

For the sake of apprising of the issue involved, enclosed herewith is a copy of information sought from the SPIO on 7.7.2008.

1. As regards question at S. No. 1 of the reply dated 16.1.2009 of the SPIO (hereinafter referred to as the ‘reply’), the said SPIO has stated that no NOC given to Shri Jatinder Mehta for formation of CHS (Cooperative Housing Society). This reply given by the SPIO is blatantly wrong and misleading since the information sought in this regard was the terms and conditions for granting NOC by the CIDCO for formation of CHS. It was not the intention of the appellant to know whether any NOC was given to Shri Jatinder Mehta. It is therefore requested to inform what are the terms and conditions for granting NOC for formation of CHS.

2. As regards question at S. No. 2 of the reply, the SPIO has stated that the application of the undersigned has been sent to Accounts dept. In this context, it is contended that sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for transfer of application to ‘another public authority’. Further, as per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –

(a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by the State Legislaure; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (j) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

Accordingly, CIDCO is treated as a ‘public authority’ as per the above definition. ‘Accounts department’ is only a part and parcel of the CIDCO and cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as an independent ‘another public authority’ as referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act. Therefore action of the SPIO of sending the application to Accounts department, treating the same as ‘another public authority’, is entirely without the authority of law. The SPIO has thus intentionally avoided this information which is construed as ‘refusal of information’ as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the RTI Act.

Without prejudice to the above contention, even otherwise, the information should have been provided within 35 days of the receipt of the application as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act. Since the appellant has not so far received this information from the Accounts department, it is deemed to have been refused by the SPIO. The SPIO has thus rendered himself liable for penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

3. As regards question at S. No. 3, the SPIO has informed that the builder, Shri Jatinder Mehta is liable to pay the dues of the building. The information is accepted as true and correct and hence no grounds for appeal in this question.

4. As regards question at S. No. 4, the grounds of appeal are same as that for question at S. No. 2 of the reply.

5. As regards question at S.No. 5, the SPIO has stated that transfer charges are required to be paid. However, he has failed to inform the exact amount payable in the present case. Since the entire facts were mentioned in the application dated 7.7.2008, the appellant was interested to know the exact amount. Thus, the said SPIO has refused to provide the information and is therefore liable for penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant once again requests the appellate authority to inform the exact amount of transfer charges, if payable.

Incidentally, it is submitted that in my opinion, no transfer of property is involved in formation of cooperative housing society; and therefore question of payment of transfer charges does not arise in the present case. This view of the appellant may please be confirmed.

6. As regards question at S. No. 6, the SPIO has stated that copies of the tripartite agreement are sent. However, no such copies have been enclosed/attached with his reply. Also, copy of Commencement Certificate has not been received. The SPIO has sent the application to the Office of the ATPO (NM & Khopta). As contended in para 2 above, the Office of the ATPO is part and parcel of the CIDCO and cannot be treated as ‘another public authority’. Thus the SPIO has refused this information as elaborated in para 2 herein above and rendered himself liable for penal action under Section 20 ibid. The appellant requests the same to be provided duly attested.

Further, it is evident from the Occupancy certificate dated 19.1.99 issued to the builder that the CIDCO has granted permission to construct the building on the said amalgamated plot. In view of this, the appellant sought to know on what terms and conditions the CIDCO granted permission for construction of the building. For the same reason, the appellant requested for a copy of the commencement certificate. However, the SPIO has remained silent on this part of the question. Thus the SPIO has refused this information and has rendered himself liable for penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. It is therefore requested that a duly attested copy of the commencement certificate be provided immediately.

7. As regards question at S. No. 7, the SPIO has wrongly replied this question, thereby misled the appellant. As per this question, the appellant may please be informed whether the builder, Shri Jatinder Mehta has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the agreement executed with CIDCO. The reply to this question is expected as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If not, then under what circumstances occupancy certificate under ref No. CIDCO/EE(BP)/ATPO/589 dated 19.1.1999 (Copy enclosed) was issued.

8. As regards question at S. No. 8, 9 and 10, the SPIO has given wrong information. As per this question, the appellant wishes to know whether any transfer charges were required to be paid for transfer of amalgamated plots to Shri Jatinder Mehta. The SPIO has informed that the transfer charges are payable if Shri Jatinder Mehta transfers these plots to any other person. Thus, the SPIO has given completely wrong and misleading information. The ‘transfer charges’ referred to in this question are the transfer charges in respect of the transfer of plots 180 and 181 from the original licensees to Shri Jatinder Mehta. The appellant wants to know:

i. whether any transfer charges in this transfer were required to be paid; ii. and if so, whether they were factually paid; iii. Further, if the said transfer charges, if payable, have not been paid, then whether CIDCO can compel the occupants of the building to pay them; iv. whether, for that matter, CIDCO can withhold NOC for non-payment of the said transfer charges; and v. what action CIDCO has taken for recovery of these transfer charges, if not paid so far. 9. As regards question at S. No. 11, The SPIO has given wrong information. The appellant wishes to know whether the CIDCO has any objection to grant NOC for formation of CHS in respect of the building constructed on plot No. 180 & 181, Sector-4, New Panvel and what formalities are required to be completed by the occupants of the said building to obtain such NOC. It is incomprehensible why the SPIO wants Shri Jatinder Mehta only to apply for the NOC. The intention of the appellant is to know in case the occupants of the building want of form the CHS, then whether in the first place, NOC from the CIDCO is necessary; and if so, what are the formalities. The SPIO has thus given misleading information. It is therefore requested to provide the correct information immediately.

10. Since in almost all the cases, the SPIO has either given wrong and misleading information or has not at all given the information, he is deemed to have refused the information as provided under Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant therefore requests to impose a penalty upon him and all the concerned under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

The appellant’s appeal dated 19.8.2008 (received by you on 20.8.2008) is pending disposal as on this date. Please note that the above information along with documents may be provided to the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of this application as provided under Section 7 of Right to Information Act, 2005.

Encl: as above

(Satish M. Talnikar) Appellant ANNRXURE “A” (See Rule 3) Format of application for obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005

The State Public Information Officer, (Manager, Town Services), 1st floor, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.

(1) Full Name of the applicant : SATISH M. TALNIKAR

(2) Address : D-701, Kalpataru Arcade CHS, Plot- 230, Sector-4, New Panvel-410206

(3) Particulars of information required

(i) Subject matter of information : Recovery proceedings against the defaulter of CIDCO dues.

(ii) The period to which the : Since February 1999 information relates

(iii) Description of the : As per the enclosed annexure information required

(iv) Whether the information is : In person required by post or in person

(v) In case by post : Not applicable

(4) Whether the applicant is below : No poverty line

Place: New Panvel Date: January 2009

Signature of the applicant (Satish M. Talnikar)

Copy to: State Information Commissioner, 18th floor, New Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. It is respectfully submitted that the status of the second appeal filed by the undersigned on 14.10.2008 (received by you on 17.10.2008) does not change with the providing of the concerned information by the SPIO since the same has been provided beyond the statutory period of 30 days. I may please be given hearing in the said second appeal at an early date. Annexure

This has reference to the information provided to me by you vide your letter CIDCO/EMS/AEO(HQ)/2008/145 dated 16.1.2009. In this context, kindly further provide me the following information. It is further requested that while providing the following information, my original application dated 7.7.2008 may please be referred to:

1. As regards question at S.No. 4, you have stated in reply dated 16.1.2009 that no recovery proceedings have been initiated against Shri Jaitinder Mehata (The correct name is ‘Jatinder Mehta). Kindly inform:

a. the time limit within which action of recovery proceedings is required to be initiated under the CIDCO rules and regulations; b. Nature of such action in detail; c. Reasons for not initiating such recovery proceedings in spite of the default of the dues being for about 10 years; d. The names of the officers responsible for not initiating recovery proceedings against the builder, Shri Jatinder Mehta; e. Whether any disciplinary action has been initiated against the officers who have been responsible for not taking action for recovery of the dues and thereby afforded financial accommodation to Shri Jatinder Mehta at the cost of CIDCO revenue;

2. As regards question at S.No. 5, you have stated in reply dated 16.1.2009 that that transfer charges for formation of housing society are required to be paid by the occupants of the building. However, it is contended that since in my opinion, no transfer of property is involved in formation of cooperative housing society, question of payment of transfer charges does not arise. Kindly inform the relevant CIDCO rules (provisions), if otherwise, which provide for payment of such transfer charges for formation of cooperative housing society as stated by you in your letter dated 16.1.2009.

3 As regards question at S.No. 6, you have stated in reply dated 16.1.2009 that copies of tripartite agreements are sent herewith. However, no such copies have been enclosed along with the letter dated 16.1.2009. Kindly send the registered copies of the same duly attested immediately.

4 As regards question at S.No. 7, you have stated in reply dated 16.1.2009 that both the plots i.e. plot No. 180 and 181 of Sector-4, New Panvel have been leased to Shri Jatinder Mehta for construction of individual bungalow. However, the Commencement Certificate issued by the CIDCO vide reference No. EE(BP)/ATPO/59 dated 30.4.1998 and Occupancy Certificate issued by the CIDCO vide reference No. CIDCO/EE(BP)/ATPO/589 dated 19.1.1999 (copy enclosed), clearly indicate that both these certificates have been granted for construction of the residential building (and not individual bungalow) on the plot No. 180 and 181. In this context, kindly provide me:

i. An attested copy of the lease deed under which construction of individual bungalow as stated by you in your reply dated 16.1.2009 has permitted; ii. An attested copy of Commencement Certificate dated 30.4.1998 as mentioned herein above; iii. Kindly inform under what circumstances, occupancy certificate dated 19.1.1999 was issued when, according to you, both the said plots were leased for construction of individual bungalow; iv. Kindly inform what action is contemplated against Shri Jatinder Mehta under the CIDCO rules for the said breach of conditions of lease agreement, as stated by you in your reply dated 16.1.2009; v. Kindly inform whether such action has been taken against Shri Jatinder Mehta for the breach of conditions of Agreement to Lease as stated by you in your reply dated 16.1.2009; vi. If no action is taken, kindly inform the reasons thereof and names and designation of the responsible officers who have failed to take such action against Shri Jatinder Mehta. vii. Whether any disciplinary action has been initiated against such defaulting officers? viii. In view of the statement of the SPIO that the said two plots have been leased to Shri Jatinder Mehta for construction of the individual bungalow, kindly inform whether the Occupancy Certificate dated 19.1.1999 has been issued by the CIDCO wrongly. ix. In case the said occupancy certificate has been issued wrongly, under what circumstances the same was issued wrongly specifically in view of the fact that occupancy certificate is issued after the construction has been verified by the officer of the CIDCO by personally visiting the site.

5 As regards questions at S.No. 1, 8,9,10 & 11, the information/clarification given by you is not only wrong but the same is irrelevant to the said questions for which separate appeal is being preferred before the appellate authority.

6 Kindly inform the name, designation and address of the appellate authority before whom the appeal is to be made.

7 I am ready to pay the photo-copying charges in respect of the above mentioned documents except the one referred to at para No. 2 above (i.e. copies of tripartite agreements). I may accordingly be informed well in advance along with the list of documents either by post or on mobile No. 9869359073.

8 I may please be granted personal hearing before any decision is taken in this case.

Please note that the above information along with documents be provided to the applicant within 30 days of the receipt of this application as per Section 7 of Right to Information Act, 2005. Also, as seen from your reply dated 16.1.2009, the information has been provided after 6 and a half month. This delay appears to be inordinate and avoidable. It is therefore requested that the present application be disposed of within the stipulated time limit.

New Panvel, January 2009

(Satish M. Talnikar) Applicant ANNEXURE “C”

[See Rule 5(2)]

Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

To: Maharashtra State Information Commissioner, 18th floor, New Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

(1) Full Name of the Applicant: Satish M. Talnikar (2) Address: D-701, Kalpataru Arcade CHS, Plot-230, Sector-4, New Panvel- 410206.

(3)` Particulars of State Public Information: State Public Information Officer, Officer CIDCO Nodal Office, Sector-1S, New Panvel-410206

(4) Particulars of First Appellate Authority: State Public Information Appellate Authority, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

(5) Date of receipt of the Order appealed against: *No Order has been passed.

(6) Last date for filing the appeal : 20th November 2008.

(7) Grounds for appeal : The SPIO has failed to provide the information. Also the First Appellate Authority has failed to dispose of the appeal filed before him on 20.08.2008. Thus, no order has been passed by the SPIO and the First Appellate Authority. Hence the second appeal. (8) Particulars of information: (i) Nature and subject matter of the information required: CIDCO Service charges (See the Annexure) (ii) Name of the office or Department Please see the Annexure to which the information relates:

Encl: Annexure

Place: New Panvel

Date: October 2008. Signature of the Appellant A n n e x u r e

1. The appellant wishes to bring to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Information Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) that he had made an application to the State Public Information officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SPIO’) on 05.07.2008 in the prescribed proforma and on payment of appropriate fee of Rs. 10/- by way of court fee stamp. Hereto annexed is a copy of the said application and marked as ‘Exhibit A’. However, the said SPIO failed to provide me the said information within the stipulated period of 30 days i.e. before 07.08.2008. Thus, in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the said SPIO has refused the information sought by the appellant.

2. The appellant submits that upon so refusal of the information by the said SPIO, he made first appeal to the appellate authority. As per the provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (8) of Section 7 of the Act, the SPIO was required to communicate to the appellant the particulars of the appellate authority before whom the first appeal would lie. However, upon failure to do so by the said SPIO, the appellant preferred the first appeal to ‘The State Information Appellate Authority’ and addressed the same to ‘CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai’ . The said first appeal was filed on 20.08.2008 in the prescribed proforma and on payment of appropriate fee of Rs. 20/- by way of court fee stamp. Hereto annexed is a copy of the said application and marked as ‘Exhibit B’.

3. The appellant submits that in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act, the appellate authority has failed to dispose of the appeal within 30 days i.e. on or before 20.09.2008 or within the extended time of further 15 days i.e. on or before 05.10.2008, thereby the said first appellate authority has deemed to have refused the information as sought for by the appellant on 05.07.2008 from the said SPIO.

4. The appellant wishes to bring to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Commissioner that on 24th September 2008, he made a humble representation to the Hon’ble Chairman, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai with a copy of the same having been endorsed to your good self. Hereto is annexed a copy of the said representation dated 24th September 2008 and marked as ‘Exhibit C’. The appellant, with a view to avoid unnecessary litigation, requested in the said representation to the Hon’ble Chairman to direct the first appellate authority to dispose of the first appeal dated 20.8.2008 expeditiously as the time limit for the same was fast approaching. However, the appellants have not received any communication on this representation as well.

Prayer:

A. The appellant requests the Hon’ble Commissioner to take up this appeal for urgent disposal since no question of law is involved in the issue but to provide the information as sought in the application dated 05.07.2008.

B. The appellant requests the Hon’ble Commissioner to direct the said SPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority to pay Rs. 5000/- each to the appellant as damages for not providing the information and dragging the appellant for this unnecessary and avoidable appeal. ALSO the Hon’ble Commissioner may like to impose a penalty on each of the SPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority as provided in Section 20 of the Act.

C. The appellant requests that the said information along with the copies of documents be supplied free of cost as provided under sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act. D. The appellant wishes to be heard in person before the appeal is decided.

E. Hon’ble Commissioner may like to pass any other suitable order as deemed fit in the matter.

Signature of the Appellant (Satish M. Talnikar)

VERIFICATION

I, Satish M. Talnikar, do hereby undertake that the information submitted above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

New Panvel, the day of October, 2008.

Signature of the Appellant (Satish M. Talnikar) ANNEXURE-“B” [See Rule 5(1)]

Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

To: State Public Information Appellate Authority, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

(1) Full Name of the Appellant: Satish M. Talnikar

(2) Address: D-701, Kalpataru Aracde CHS, Plot-230, Sector-4, New Panvel- 410206. Ph.; 9869359073, 22948933

(3) Particulars of the State Public: As per the copy of application Information Officer attached herewith

(4) Date of receipt of the Order Order not passed at all. appealed against (if order passed)

(5) Last date for filing the appeal: Not applicable since the order has not been passed as on this date.

(6) Grounds for appeal: As per the annexure enclosed.

(7) Particulars of information: As per the copy of original application attached herewith. Also reasons for not providing the information by the State Public Information officer.

Place: New Panvel Date: 18th August 2008 Satish Encl: as above (M. Talnikar).

(Note: Kindly inform the name, designation and address of the appellate authority) ANNEXURE

Grounds of Appeal

1. As per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Maharashtra Right to Information Act, 2002, the State Public Information Officer was required to provide the information as mentioned in the original application dated 7.7.2008 within 15 days of its receipt. However, the said State Public Information Officer has failed to provide the said information within the stipulated time limit or the extended time limit nor has he given any reasons for not providing the said information.

2. As per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Right to Information Act, 2002, the said State Public Information Officer was required to communicate the period within which an appeal may be preferred and the officer or the authority before whom the appeal shall be preferred by the applicant. However, the said Public Information Officer has blatantly failed to do so, thereby the appellant is unable to mention the name and address of the Appellate Authority in the form of Appeal.

3. As per the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 7 of Right to Information Act, 2005, the information shall be provided free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1). Accordingly, it is requested that no fees should be charged from the appellant for providing the said information.

4. The appellant requests personal hearing in the matter in the event it is decided by the appellate authority not to give any part of the information as applied for in the original application.

(Satish Talnikar) Appellant (Information from SPIO)

ANNEXURE

There were two adjacent plots viz. Plot No. 180 (282.45 sq. mts) and Plot No. 181 (273.06 sq. mts) in Sector-4, New Panvel, belonging to two different persons viz. Shri Harkisandas Maganlal Mehta and Shri Ashok Maganlal Mehta respectively. The said two plots were allotted as bungalow plots, accordingly, commencement certificate and development permissions were granted to them. Instead of developing the said two plots, the owners of the said two plots amalgamated and the same was transferred to M/s Ganeshkripa Associates, Proprietor Shri Jatinder Mehta (hereafter referred as ‘the builder’), New Panvel (Proprietor: Shri Jatinder Mehta). The said amalgamation was duly approved by CIDCO. Thereafter, the builder constructed a residential building on the said amalgamated plot and sold 18 apartments (flats) in the said building to the individual concerned. The undersigned is one of the individuals who bought an apartment in the said building. The builder has constructed building comprising of 18 apartments on the above said amalgamated plots 180 & 181 in the name of “YASH APARTMENT”. All the units were sold by February 1999. However, he has not formed the Housing Society of the building. When the occupants of the apartment submitted a proposal of formation of society with the Asstt. Registrar, the Asstt. Registrar demanded NOC from CIDCO. The CIDCO denied the NOC, with the result that society has not so far been formed and registered. In this context, I seek the following information/documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

1. Kindly inform on what terms and conditions NOC is granted by CIDCO for the purpose of formation of Housing Society in respect of the said building? 2. Kindly inform what the dues payable to the CIDCO on the above building since February 1999 (Year-wise and Item-wise)? 3. Who is liable to pay these dues when the building is not converted into Housing Society? 4. Since the builder has not formed the society, he is under a legal obligation to look after the maintenance of the building and for that matter he should recover monthly contribution from the occupants. Thus, the builder is liable to pay the above-said dues. Kindly inform whether these dues have been paid by the builder? If not, whether recovery proceedings have been initiated against the builder and when? Kindly inform the outcome of the recovery proceedings. 5. Whether any transfer charges are payable by the occupants of the building for formation of Housing Society? If so, what is the amount for the said building?

6. On what terms and conditions, CIDCO has permitted to construct the building on the said amalgamated plots. Kindly supply a copy of letter granting permission for construction of apartments on the said amalgamated plot 180 & 181. Copies of the tripartite agreements with CIDCO and the commencement certificate for construction of the said building may kindly be provided. 7. Whether the builder (M/s Ganeshkripa Associates) has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the agreement executed with CIDCO, if any, for construction of the apartments? 8. Whethe any transfer charges were required to be paid for transfer of the said two plos in the name of the builder? If so, wshether the were paid? 9. If the said transfer charges have not been paid as on date, whether the CIDCO has taken any legal action against the defaulter as contemplated under the rules and regulations of the CIDCO? 10. Is there any condition which provided payment of the said transfer charges by the occupants of the apartment in the event of failure on the part of the builder? 11. Does CIDCO have any objection to grant NOC for formation of Housing Society in respect of the said building? What are the formalities which are required to be completed by the occupants to obtain such NOC from CIDCO.

Kindly furnish the above information/documents within 30 days of the receipt of this application as per the Right to Information Act. 2005. Kindly inform me the expenditure involved in the postage for sending the above information/documents in advance so as to enable me to make the payment of the same. Also kindly inform the mode of payment of postage.

(S.M. Talnikar) D-701, Kalpataru Arcade CHS, Plot-230, Sector-4, New Panvel Ph. 9869359073, 22948933