Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Appeal No.2009/2001/02 Shri. Jaan Mohammad Gulam Mohammad Khan C/o. Plot No. 27/A/46-47 (Road No. 2), Shivaji Nagar, Gowandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant V/s First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Municipal Commissioner (I), (Sudhar) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Head Office, Ext. Bldg., 3 rd Floor, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. …. Respondent Public Information Officer cum TAVO, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Room No.211, 2 nd Floor, Ext. Bldg., Head Office, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. GROUNDS This appeal has been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act 2005. The appellant is one of the persons whose structures were affected because of training of Rafi Nagar Nulla. The appellant was offered a pitch but the same was encroached by another person. The MCGM allotted to him another plot. The appellant however, wanted a photo pass which was denied saying that while structure was protected, he is not entitled to have a photo pass. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The respondents have conducted an enquiry into the allegations made by the appellant. They have obtained Municipal Commissioner’s order and the same has been communicated. A copy of the report was also furnished to him. The appellant is still not satisfied and fears that MCGM may remove him at will. He wants to be assured that his structure will remain protected. The formal allotment letter has been issued to him. He has also pointed that enquiry officer has remarked that his structure is illegal and should be removed. I have gone through the entire file and also listened to parties. Since the appellant has been formally allotted pitch no.28, the question of his being illegally does not arise. The enquiry officer said that the remark was because of the fact that allotment letter was not shown to him. The remark thus becomes infructuous and invalid. Since it has C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh already been admitted that his structure is protected, I see no reason for him to worry. The officials present also assured him that he would get the same protection and treatment as other allottees. In the light the above discussion, the case is closed. Order The appeal is disposed off. (Ramanand Tiwari) State Information Commissioner, Mumbai Place: Mumbai Date: 08.04.2009. C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Appeal No.2009/2000/02 Shri. Jaan Mohammad Gulam Mohammad Khan C/o. Plot No. 27/A/46-47 (Road No. 2), Shivaji Nagar, Gowandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant V/s First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Municipal Commissioner (I), (Sudhar) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Head Office, Ext. Bldg., 3 rd Floor, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. …. Respondent Public Information Officer cum TAVO, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Room No.211, 2 nd Floor, Ext. Bldg., Head Office, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. GROUNDS This appeal has been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act 2005. The appellant is one of the persons whose structures were affected because of training of Rafi Nagar Nulla. The appellant was offered a pitch but the same was encroached by another person. The MCGM allotted to him another plot. The appellant however, wanted a photo pass which was denied saying that while structure was protected, he is not entitled to have a photo pass. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The respondents have conducted an enquiry into the allegations made by the appellant. They have obtained Municipal Commissioner’s order and the same has been communicated. A copy of the report was also furnished to him. The appellant is still not satisfied and fears that MCGM may remove him at will. He wants to be assured that his structure will remain protected. The formal allotment letter has been issued to him. He has also pointed that enquiry officer has remarked that his structure is illegal and should be removed. I have gone through the entire file and also listened to parties. Since the appellant has been formally allotted pitch no.28, the question of his being illegally does not arise. The enquiry officer said that the remark was because of the fact that allotment letter was not shown to him. The remark thus becomes infructuous and invalid. Since it has C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh already been admitted that his structure is protected, I see no reason for him to worry. The officials present also assured him that he would get the same protection and treatment as other allottees. In the light the above discussion, the case is closed. Order The appeal is disposed off. (Ramanand Tiwari) State Information Commissioner, Mumbai Place: Mumbai Date: 08.04.2009. C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Appeal No.2009/2002/02 Shri. Jaan Mohammad Gulam Mohammad Khan C/o. Plot No. 27/A/46-47 (Road No. 2), Shivaji Nagar, Gowandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant V/s First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Municipal Commissioner (I), (Sudhar) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Head Office, Ext. Bldg., 3 rd Floor, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. …. Respondent Public Information Officer cum TAVO, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Room No.211, 2 nd Floor, Ext. Bldg., Head Office, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. GROUNDS This appeal has been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act 2005. The appellant is one of the persons whose structures were affected because of training of Rafi Nagar Nulla. The appellant was offered a pitch but the same was encroached by another person. The MCGM allotted to him another plot. The appellant however, wanted a photo pass which was denied saying that while structure was protected, he is not entitled to have a photo pass. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The respondents have conducted an enquiry into the allegations made by the appellant. They have obtained Municipal Commissioner’s order and the same has been communicated. A copy of the report was also furnished to him. The appellant is still not satisfied and fears that MCGM may remove him at will. He wants to be assured that his structure will remain protected. The formal allotment letter has been issued to him. He has also pointed that enquiry officer has remarked that his structure is illegal and should be removed. I have gone through the entire file and also listened to parties. Since the appellant has been formally allotted pitch no.28, the question of his being illegally does not arise. The enquiry officer said that the remark was because of the fact that allotment letter was not shown to him. The remark thus becomes infructuous and invalid. Since it has C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh already been admitted that his structure is protected, I see no reason for him to worry. The officials present also assured him that he would get the same protection and treatment as other allottees. In the light the above discussion, the case is closed. Order The appeal is disposed off. (Ramanand Tiwari) State Information Commissioner, Mumbai Place: Mumbai Date: 08.04.2009. C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Appeal No.2009/2191/02 Mr. Baljeet Singh Dogra Jai Jawan Stall, Bhel Plaza, Girgaon Chowpatty, Mumbai. … Appellant V/s First Appellate Officer cum Assist Commissioner Municipal Corporation, A-Ward, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Respondent Public Information Officer cum Assist Engineer Municipal Corporation, A-Ward, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. GROUNDS This appeal has been filed under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the original size of the Jaijawan Stall allotted to Mr.Dandekar and popularly known as ‘Canon’ opposite Mumbai Mahanagar Palika Head Quarters. Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the commission. The appeal was heard on 13.04.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that he has not been given satisfactory reply. The respondent’s contention is that the appellant is a stall holder at Chawpati. He has also been given a copy of the allotment letter issued to Mr. Dandekar. The available information has thus been furnished. After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by parties I have come to the conclusion that the reason for his stall being smaller than C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\April, 2009.doc Kamlesh Mr. Dandekar is the crucial point. Record reveals that there is no uniformity in the size of stalls. There has to be some guidelines for differentiation. The appellant is entitled know the reasons for his stall being smaller than others.