Central Information Commission
Mr.Pavan Sachdeva vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 14 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000247
Appellant : Shri Pavan Sachdeva
Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority
(through Shri R.K. Sharma, Dy Director
(CL))
Date of Hearing : 14.6.2010
Date of Decision : 14.6.2010
FACTS :
Vide RTI application dated 9.9.2009, the appellant had requested for information on the following 07 paras :-
"(i) Comments given by your office on our complaint dated 17.6.2009;
(ii) Action taken by your office on our complaint dated 17.6.2009;
(iii) Reply of DDA in response to the letter dated 14.6.2006 of M/s Asrani Inns & Resorts Pvt Ltd,
(iv) Possession letters dated 13.10.2006 issued by DDA to M/s Asrani Inns & Resorts Pvt Ltd, in respect of the above two hotel plots nos 1 & 2;
(v) No Objection Certificate issued to M/s Asrani Inns & Resorts Pvt Ltd in respect of the above two hotel plots nos 1 & 2;
(vi) Permission to Mortgage in respect of the above two hotel plots nos 1 & 2; &
(vii) Lease Deeds in respect of the above two hotel plots nos 1 & 2."
2. Vide letter dated 7.10.209, the CPIO had agreed to disclose information regarding paras 1 & 2 on payment of requisite fee. As regards paras 03 to 07, the CPIO had informed that appellant that the reply would be furnished separately. However, vide subsequent letter dated 19.10.2009, the CPIO had informed that information regarding paras 03 to 07 could not be furnished for the reason that the third party i.e. M/s Asrani Inns and Resorts Pvt Ltd, had objected to such disclosure.
3. Heard on 14.6.2010. M/s Shoes East Ltd is represented by Shri R.P. Mehta. DDA is represented by the officer named above. During the hearing it transpires that Director (CL) had passed an order dated 27.10.2009, the operative para of which is extracted below :-
"In view of the above, PIO is hereby advised to take a view in next 30 days for remaining paras. He may consider inviting objections of the first party under Section 11 of the RTI Act, if he desires so. Your first appeal is disposed off accordingly."
4. The appellate order makes the whole issue curious. As noted above, the CPIO vide letter dated 19.10.2009 had declined to disclose information on paras 03 to 07 but the AA had directed the CPIO to re- consider the matter. Perhaps, CPIO's decision was not brought to the AA's notice. It is to be noted that when CPIO had refused to disclose certain information, the question of re-consideration by him did not arise. It was for the AA to have passed a categorical order u/s 19 of the RTI Act.
DECISION
5. In view of the above, the case is remanded to Shri Yashpal Garg, Director (CL) (AA), DDA, New Delhi, with the direction to pass a clear order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, in 06 weeks time.
6. The appellant will be at liberty to move the Commission again if he is not satisfied with the order of the AA.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(D.C. Singh) Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri R.K. Sharma Dy Director (CL), Delhi Development Authority, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023
2. Shri Pavan Sachdeva Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M S Shoe East Ltd, 112A, Ekta Enclave, New Delhi-110087