Central Information Commission
Mr.D V S Yadav vs Delhi Development Authority on 31 October, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003315/VS/01219
Appeal No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003315/VS
Dated: 31102012
Appellant: Shri D.V.S. Yadav
Flat No. E401, Plot No.9
Chitrakoot Apartments
Sector22, Dwarka
New Delhi.
Respondent: Public Information Officer
Delhi Development Authority
Dy. Director (LA) Resdl.
Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi110023.
Date of Hearing: 31102012.
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 2132011 regarding action taken on application/complaint dated 30122010 and 2112011submitted to the respondent.
2. The appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 245 2011. The FAA did not respond. A second appeal was filed before the Commission on 99 2011.
Hearing:
3. I heard both the parties. The appellant stated that he filed an RTI application seeking information on certain points, but the respondent had avoided responding on the specific issues, though he did receive a response from the respondent. The appellant said that essentially he wanted to know the action taken by the respondent on the complaints that he had made to the DDA, because of which he had been deprived of a property.
4. The respondent stated that they have no reason to deny the information and that a detailed response had been sent to the appellant on 952011 followed by another letter of 1082011 with a more detailed response after receiving the comments of the FAA. The respondent said that mutation is done on the basis of the documents and that there is no reason to do anything otherwise. The respondent stated that on the RTI application, they have responded pointwise. The respondent further stated that the mutation is a formal exercise, based on documentation. It was said that the exercise in this case was undertaken in the DDA on the basis of the documents provided by the brother of the appellant after the death of the father, the original claimant and that if the appellant has any grudge it should be against his brother.
5. The respondent stated that as soon as the facts were brought to the notice of the DDA, the mutation was withdrawn and that the matter is now subjudice.
6. The appellant said that if the mutation is withdrawn then on what basis did the respondent sanction the building plan for his brother. The appellant said that the matter was unnecessarily allowed to linger on in the DDA.
7. The respondent stated that the DDA had not allowed the matter linger on this issue but the DDA acted promptly on the basis of whatever information was given to them, which DDA underlined by stating that as soon as they received the information they withdrew the mutation. The respondent further stated that the building sanction plan had been revoked when they received the correct information from the appellant.
Decision:
8. The respondent is directed to allow access to the appellant of the relevant file records, following which copies of any relevant documents be made available as per rules.
This should be done within 30 days from the issuance of this order.
Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.