Central Information Commission
S K Bansal vs Delhi Co Operative Housing Finance ... on 30 October, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/311502
F. No.CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133295
F. No.CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133294
F. No.CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133296
F. No.CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133298
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision : 22.10.2018
Appellant/Complainant : S K Bansal
Respondent : PIO
Senior Manager
Delhi Cooperative Housing
Finance Corp. Ltd.
GNCTD
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. Filed on PIO reply First appeal FAO
311502 04.03.2016 05.04.2016 06.06.2016 06.07.2016
133295 08.03.2016 05.04.2016 06.06.2016 08.06.2016
133294 04.03.2016 05.04.2016 06.06.2016 06.07.2016
133296 08.03.2016 05.04.2016 06.06.2016 08.06.2016
133298 04.03.2016 05.04.2016 06.06.2016 06.07.2016
Since the captioned appeals have been filed by the same appellant and
involve similar queries, they are clubbed for the purpose of hearing
&adjudication.
ORDER
Common Background of the appeals:
1. The present second appeals are predicated against denial of information by respondent PIO. The RTI applications in hand are facets of a single underlying grievance of the appellant; hence the present appeals are taken up together.Page 1 of 6
2. Both the parties are present and heard at length. The appellant is a resident of Jeewan Jyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society, Pitampura, Delhi. The appellant holds his residential property on leasehold basis. The appellant is aggrieved since he is unable to apply for conversion of his leasehold rights as freehold for want of clearance/ NOC from Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation (DCHFC).
3. DHCFC being a financial institution had extended loan to various Cooperative Housing societies to develop infrastructure. Delhi Development Authority is the agency owning land whereupon various such residential projects across the national capital have been developed.
In cases where a group housing society has availed loan from DCHFC, obtaining clearance from DCHFC is a precondition to apply for conversion of proprietary rights from leasehold to freehold. However, on what basis such clearance is to be granted by DCHFC is the cause of ongoing litigation stated to be pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. It is the case of appellant that he has repaid to the society all outstanding loan with interest as due from him. Having honoured his personal commitment to repay debt, the appellant wants clearance from DCHFC to enable him to apply for upgradation of his possession into ownership. However, on the other hand, DCHFC has a different notion. It is the case of DCHFC that since the society being aggregator of its members had availed loan as a single entity from DCFHC; clearance/ NOC to any individual cannot be granted unless the aggregate loan outstanding against the society is repaid. In other words, no objection or loan clearance at the end of DCHFC is to be granted to a society enbloc as a single entity.
CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/311502 CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133294
5. While the conflicting contentions of similarly situated parties ha been subject matter of litigation pending in Supreme Court, the appellant came across a curious case of one Ms. Sudha Chawla, who being a member of Shankar CGHS, Ltd, Sector 15, Rohini was granted a 'no objection' for freehold conversion by DCHFC despite her CGHS not having repaid loan to DCHFC. The aforesaid departure of DCHFC from its usual stand on the issue caused heartburn to the appellant and other similarly situated Page 2 of 6 persons who were not being favourably considered by DCHFC. This led the appellant to file two RTI application to know the rationale behind the concession granted to Ms. Sudha Chawla of Shankar CGHS, Rohini Sector
15. the appellant sought following information:-
1) What was the total default amount of payment against the loan account, against the Shankar CGHS, Ltd, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi-110089, on the date of the issue of this letter to DDA?
2) Whether the "No dues Certificate" had been issued by the said society in favour of Smt. Sudha Chawala, resident of this society, before the issue of this letter to DDA. If so when, please provide the copy of the said NOC.
3) State the date of application for No Dues Certificate by DCHFC, was received in the office of DCHFC.
4) Copies of all file notings in connection with dealing of this application, to the time of writing letter dated 13.05.2014 to DDA.
6. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.04.2016 held the information sought to be third party/ fiduciary information and denied disclosure under section 8(1)(e)&(j) of RTI Act. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/General Manager vide letter 06.07.2016 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved as not received information as sought under RTI, the appellant approached the Commission.
7. Citing the case of Ms. Sudha, the appellant questions the dichotomy of DCHFC in policy implementation. He submits that over and above any personal right, being adversely effected party in a similar case; he has a right to know as to why permission was granted in Ms. Sudha's case while the same is denied in his case. In this light, the appellant prays for disclosure of information. On the other hand, the PIO reiterates his earlier stand before the Commission and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is already seized of the controversy and till the time a conclusive decision is pronounced, the policy of DCHFC cannot be questioned. HE submits that the case of Ms. Sudha Chawla was processed upon directions of the Delhi High Court.
Page 3 of 6Decision:
8. The Commission finds that the reply of PIO was lawful. Information sought is indeed third party information, however, in the light of facts at hand, the appellant has carved out a case of larger public interest warranting disclosure of information. The Commission while ruling so, is quite alive to the concept of „negative equality‟ and not reviewing any executive decision or policy. The Commission is not weighing substantive contentions of parties as regards the policy of DCHFC or the lawful method of repayment of loan. That remains for the Hon'ble Apex Court to decide. The Commission finds that citing a standalone case of deviation in policy implementation, the appellant has succeeded in making out a case of larger public interest. The appellant having been dealt with a different yardstick by DCHFC is entitled to know the factors which weighed favourably with DCHFC while granting NOC to Ms. Sudha Chawala. Admittedly, there are thousands of people like appellant who despite honouring their commitments are finding it difficult to have their share of happiness in a self owned house.
9. Accordingly, the reply of PIO as well as FAO is set aside and the PIO is directed to furnish complete information on all four points reproduced in para 5. Revised reply shall be furnished within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. The captioned appeals are allowed.
CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133295 CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133296 CIC/DHFCL/A/2017/133298
10. The second set of three appeals arise out of a common RTI application dated 08.03.2016 whereby the appellant sought following information:
1. Whether every resident of Jiwan Jyoti CGHS, Pitam Pura Delhi-110034, who was granted the housing loan was supposed to have Insurance in their names?
2. If so, give the names of the total persons, so insured, indicating the yearly amount due from them every year.
3. How many of these persons, died during the period of loan payment?Page 4 of 6
4. Whether the loan amount outstanding against these persons, have been adjusted against this Insurance?
5. If so how much amount of loan has been adjusted against this year- wise?
6. How many persons are still paying the insurance amount? State the names of such persons and amount of Insurance against each person.
11. The CPIO/Senior Manager, DCHFC vide letter dated 05.04.2016 informed that sought information was third party fiduciary information and exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e)&(j) of RTI Act. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/General Manager vide letter 06.07.2016 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved as not received information as sought under RTI, the appellant approached the Commission.
12. The rival contentions of the parties were heard. The appellant strenuously argues that for lapse of loan repayment on the part of defaulting members of CGHS, the members having scrupulously repaid loan are suffering. He submits to have repaid his share of loan, however, the society has not remitted the same to DCHFC. He submits that due to misadministration of CGHS, most of the members are suffering. Per contra, the PIO submits that DCHFC has granted the a consolidated loan to the society and the privity of contract is between the DCHFC & the society. Each member cannot be deemed as an independent unit and substitute the society is such contractual obligation. He submits that DCHFC at no point of time dealt with individual members and NOC cannot be granted until and unless, the society clears the aggregate outstanding dues. In support of his contention, he submits that the whole society is mortgaged in lieu of the loan and the management of society is liable to repay the loan.
13. Commenting upon the locus of appellant to seek information, he submits that as per the DCS Act, only a member can seek such information from the Registrar of Societies.
Page 5 of 6Decision:
14. The purport of query of appellant is that the outstanding dues of his fellow CGHS members must not add on to his liability as per the policy of DCHFC of amalgamated loan repayment. In other words, due to the system of aggregate repayment of loan, the liability of a defaulter may shift on to the other members and DCHFC may not give NOC to the non defaulting members till debts are paid off by the defaulting members.
15. Concerned with the aforesaid position, the appellant is well within his rights to seek details of any requirement of compulsory insurance imposed by DCHFC. Apart from reiterating reliance on exemption clauses of Section 8(1), the PIO has not enumerated any cogent reasons for which the disclosure be not made. In the considered opinion of the Commission, when the members are considered as one unit by DCFHC for the purpose of loan repayment; the members cannot be claim inter-se privacy for the same purpose. Their legal character vis-à-vis each other is that of partners in a partnership firm and there cannot be a privacy clause amongst them as far as the business is concerned.
16. Accordingly, the reply of PIO is set aside. The PIO is directed to collate complete information and furnish the same to appellant within 4 weeks of receipt of this order. Needless to say, the PIO shall be at liberty to obtain assistance under Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act in complying with the present decision. Let a compliance report be transmitted to Commission by 21.12.2018. The appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 6 of 6