Are you concerned about illegal construction in your neighbourhood? Do you suspect that an architect might have bypassed sanctioned plans, and you want to know what action has been taken? Many Indian citizens face such situations where unauthorized constructions can impact their lives, and they often wonder if the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be their tool to seek accountability. This article delves into a real RTI case that clarifies how you can use RTI to get crucial information about action taken against architects involved in illegal construction and the role of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in ensuring transparency.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this particular case, an RTI applicant wanted to shed light on an instance of construction that did not adhere to the officially sanctioned building plan. The applicant specifically requested details about the action, if any, initiated against the architect responsible for this deviation. Furthermore, they sought to identify the officers who were supposed to issue notices to the architect and, crucially, the reasons why such notices might not have been issued. The applicant also requested copies of inspection reports submitted Junior Engineer (JE), Assistant Engineer (AE), and Senior Engineer (SE) concerning the construction. While the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point-wise response, the appellant remained unsatisfied, indicating that the information provided was not complete or clear enough. The appellant also highlighted an important office order that stipulated that if a building was being constructed without proper supervision, the construction should be halted, and a show-cause notice should be issued to the architect. This detail suggested a potential lapse in following established procedures.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) was a point-wise reply to the RTI application. However, the applicant found this response to be insufficient, leading to dissatisfaction. The PIO’s response did not clearly articulate the specific actions taken against the architect or provide a definitive explanation for any inaction. This lack of clarity and specificity is a common issue encountered in RTI matters, often requiring further intervention or appeals.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) due to the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the PIO’s response. During the hearing, the appellant reiterated their concerns and emphasized the existence of an office order that mandates specific actions in cases of construction without supervision. The appellant argued that the PIO’s reply failed to address these procedural aspects and did not clearly state whether the mandated actions were taken or why they were not. The CIC, after hearing the arguments and examining the case, noted the deficiencies in the PIO’s initial response.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) critically observed that the PIO had not provided a categorical and specific reply to the appellant’s queries. The Commission directed the PIO to provide a clear and direct answer regarding the action taken against the architect. If no action had been initiated, the PIO was explicitly instructed to state this fact plainly. Furthermore, the CIC emphasized the importance of the office order mentioned appellant and directed the PIO to provide specific information related to its implementation and any actions taken in accordance with it. This order is significant because it reinforces the principle that public authorities must provide precise and verifiable information under the RTI Act, especially when procedural lapses or potential wrongdoing are alleged. It highlights that vague or incomplete replies are not acceptable and that citizens have the right to know the exact status of actions taken departments.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Specific in Your Application: Clearly articulate the information you need. Mention specific documents, actions, dates, and the names of officials or departments involved if known. In this case, asking about the “action taken against the architect” and requesting “inspection reports” was crucial.
- Lesson 2: Highlight Relevant Rules and Office Orders: If you are aware of any specific rules, regulations, or office orders that govern the issue you are inquiring about, mention them in your RTI application. This strengthens your request and guides the PIO towards the correct information. The appellant’s reference to the office order was pivotal.
- Lesson 3: Don’t Accept Vague Replies: If the PIO’s response is unclear, incomplete, or evasive, do not hesitate to file a first appeal (under Section 19 of the RTI Act) and subsequently a second appeal to the CIC. The CIC is there to ensure that the spirit of the RTI Act is upheld and that citizens receive the information they are entitled to.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Concerned Public Authority: Determine which government department or local body is responsible for building plan approvals and monitoring construction activities in your area.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Clearly state your request for information. Be specific about the construction in question (e.g., address, if known) and the information you seek regarding the architect’s actions, notices issued, inspection reports, and any actions taken.
- Mention Relevant Rules: If you know of any specific building bye-laws or office orders that apply, refer to them.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit your application to the PIO of the concerned authority and pay the prescribed fee. Keep a copy of your application and the receipt.
- Follow Up: If you do not receive a satisfactory reply within the stipulated time (usually 30 days under Section 7 of the RTI Act), file a first appeal.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide details of any action taken against the architect responsible for the construction at [mention address or specific location if known] for alleged deviations from the sanctioned building plan. Please also provide copies of all inspection reports submitted Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, and Senior Engineer for this construction, and state the reasons for non-issuance of any notices to the architect, if applicable. Kindly also provide information on the implementation of the office order dated [mention date if known] regarding construction without supervision.”
Conclusion
This case underscores the power of the RTI Act in holding public authorities accountable and ensuring transparency, especially concerning matters of illegal construction. your rights and following the correct procedures, you can effectively use RTI to seek information about actions taken against architects and officers involved in deviations from sanctioned plans. Remember, a well-drafted RTI application, coupled with persistence, can lead to the disclosure of crucial information that promotes responsible governance and upholds the rule of law. Don’t hesitate to use RTI to get the answers you deserve.
