Central Information Commission
Raghavan Samudrala vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/618330
Raghavan Samudrala .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Engineer-(Bldg.) L&I &
Residential, Delhi Development
Authority, C-1/204, 2nd Floor,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025
Date of Decision : 18.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 12.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 14.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"How many cooperative group hosing societies in Delhi were given completion certificates and how many were not given as on date. Please provide area wise details Please provide details of cooperative societies, where DDA allotted flats to members without completion certificate Page 1 of 5 Provide details of illegal or unauthorized encroachment of public properties in Delhi Provide details of buildings, needing structural stability certificate."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.04.2024 stating as under:
"Only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of the Public Authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create the information or to interpret the information to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical question.
However, for more information you can visit this office on any public dealing working days i.e. Monday & Thursday between 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM with prior intimation to this office with original & attested proof of ownership documents of the specific property & ID proof"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.04.2024; upheld the reply of PIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Madhuban Bhai Patel, CPIO-cum-Assistant Engineer, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. While explaining the brief backgrounds of the case, the Appellant apprised the Bench if the fact that he wants to buy a new property which is compliant with all necessary regulations and that is why he wants this information from the Respondent as a matter of due diligence and prudence so that he can invest his hard-earned money rightly in a property which has a clear land title, completion certificate, building structural stability certificate Page 2 of 5 etc. This information should be available in public domain in larger public interest.
7. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is not maintained in the records in a compiled form. He apprised the Bench that from the year 2016, system is online but the same can only accessed by recognized architects and not by public. He further offered the Appellant to visit their office so that inspection of the relevant files, which are voluminous in nature, can be given. The Appellant agreed for the same.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application involves larger public interest. It is a matter of fact that the information is not maintained by the Respondent Public Authority in a compiled form. Therefore, Shri Madhuban Bhai Patel, CPIO-cum-Assistant Engineer, is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant as many times as the Appellant desires, on a mutually decided date and time within nine weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply him a list of files connected with the query in the RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to him free of cost. Information which are exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed.
9. The FAA to ensure compliance with the above directions.
10. A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this Bench in the recent past is that the DDA or other similarly placed agencies in GNCTD are not maintaining the information Page 3 of 5 pertaining to clear land title of a property, completion certificate, building structural stability certificate etc. upfront in public domain. This approach does not correspond with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission noted that the Appellant is a senior citizen who needs this sort of information so that he can invest his hard-earned money rightly in a property, which appears to be unavailable in public domain. The Commission is of the opinion the issue involves larger public interest and public needs access to information upfront in public domain so that they can make an informed choice. Therefore, considering the issue flagged by the Appellant i.e. no information is available in public domain, some hand holding/ upfront disclosure on website would help public in making an informed choice. The Commission would like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:
"25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of 'Monitoring and Reporting' conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority".
26. "For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For Page 4 of 5 this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act."
11. Accordingly, the Respondent is advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for seeking such information. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
12. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Director (Building), Delhi Development Authority, C-1/112, Ist Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi- 110023 Copy is sent the Monitoring Cell of Central Information Commission.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)