RTI catches up with erring MCG | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 26, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

RTI catches up with erring MCG

The Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon (MCG) is in trouble for not responding to queries filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI) by a resident. The MCG had encroached upon a plot near Shanti Nagar owned by Balbir Yadav, 86.

india Updated: May 31, 2011 01:51 IST
Vimal Chander Joshi

The Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon (MCG) is in trouble for not responding to queries filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI) by a resident. The MCG had encroached upon a plot near Shanti Nagar owned by Balbir Yadav, 86. The erstwhile municipal council (now MCG) broke the boundary of the plot and carved out a lane cutting across the private property.

Now, a Chandigarh-based senior officer has pulled up the MCG for not approving a genuine building plan. Tightening the noose around the MCG’s neck is the State Information Commission (SIC), which oversees RTI cases. The SIC has demanded an answer from the MCG for not replying to RTI queries across several levels of administration.

The action finally came after Hindustan Times carried a story about the difficulties faced by the senior citizen.

“My father’s personal property has become a thoroughfare for people. When we applied for a building plan to MCG to erect walls, the corporation never approved it although 10 months have passed,” said Dharmender, Balbir's son. Only recently, the MCG asked Dharmender to submit the fee to get the building plan approved, along with an affidavit to claim ownership of the property.

The SIC has also asked the MCG commissioner and joint commissioner to explain their absence in the hearing of Balbir’s RTI appeal filed at the SIC's office in Chandigarh. The April 27 order states: “Appellant is a 86-year-old retired senior government official with one son serving as a brigadier in the Indian army. Despite having settled all objections, their building plan for the plot has not been approved. There is merit in appellant's contention and head of public authority is hereby directed to consider redressal of the grievances.”