Yashovardhan Azad, IC:—
Information sought and background of the case:
The applicant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2015 seeking information about SDMC's definition of “Commercial Activity” and whether renting out of space or furniture in residential building constitute “Commercial Activity”. He further sought information about the specific provision of Building Bye Laws no. 14.12.1 which permits basement of all buildings to be used for strong rooms, bank cellars etc. The PIO/EE(B) vide letter dated 25.08.2015 transferred the RTI application to Town Planning Deptt and informed the appellant accordingly. The appellant filed an appeal on 01.09.2015 who fixed a date for hearing the First Appeal on 13.10.2015 vide notice dated 06.10.2015. In view of inaction of the public authority thereafter, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties were duly represented during the hearing and reiterated their respective submissions. At the reiteration of the query by the representative of the appellant, the Respondent refers to the letter dated 14.09.2015 which had been sent by the PIO, in compliance of the FAA's directions. The chapter 15 of MPD-2021 had been referred by the PIO in response to the query of the appellant. Copies of the entire chapter 15 and clause 14.12.1 of the Master Plan 2021 have been placed on record. The clause 14.12.1 envisages that “….the construction of the basement shall be allowed by the Authority in accordance with the land use and other provisions specified under the Master Plan…” and the Chapter 15 of the MPD 2021 sets out the regulations with respect to Mixed Use of land, for purposes than that for which it was originally envisaged. The various provisions of the said chapter lay down the conditions when such mixed usage may be allowed, general principles to be followed for implementation of such policy, permissible and non-permissible uses and mitigating measures to be taken to counter misuse. However, the Master Plan does not define the word “commercial activity” as such. Respondent painfully elaborates the clause 15.6.3 provides response to the query of the appellant though nowhere the term “commercial activity” as sought by the appellant has been defined.
DECISION
After hearing the submissions and perusal of record, the Commission notes that since the term “commercial activity” has not been defined clearly, no further response can be given against query number 1. However, it is directed that in response to queries 2 and 3 clarification may be provided to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Comments