Central Information Commission
Ashok Prabhakar vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Hq on 14 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/117795
F. No.CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/117796
F. No.CIC/NDMCH/A/2017/170132
F. No.CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/131235
F. No.CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/131234
Date of Hearing : 16.07.2018
Date of Decision : 13.08.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Ashok Prabhakar
Respondent : PIO
Dy. Director-(Estate-I),
New Delhi Municipal Council
Through:-
Shri S.K. Soni
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
117795 11.07.2016 - 17.08.2016 18.11.2016
117796 11.07.2016 - 18.08.2016 18.11.2016
170132 03.08.2017 - 08.09.2017 -
131235 19.02.2018 - 02.04.2018 -
131234 19.02.2018 - 02.04.2018 -
Since the parties in all of the above cases are common, the matters are
clubbed for the purpose of effective adjudication.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/117795
CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/117796
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 11.07.2016, the appellant sought information regarding NMDC's policy on cancellation of shops/units in respect of Shop no. 5, Prithviraj Market on 40 points. Having not received any information from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/Director (Estate-I) vide letter dated 18.11.2016 not only directed the PIO (E-I) to furnished the information within 2 weeks but also intimate the date & time to the appellant for inspection of the records, if the same is required by the appellant.
In compliance of FAO, PIO/Dy. Director (Estate-I) vide letter dated 28.12.2016 requested to appellant to inspect the relevant record on 06.01.2017 at 11.00 AM. It seems from second appeal, appellant went for inspection of record of said shop but due to unavailability of file at that time with NDMC Estate Branch-I, he could not inspect the file. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAA, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NDMCH/A/2017/170132 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 03.08.2017, the appellant sought copy of file movement register regarding the License deed signed by Director Estate on 31.03.1997 in respect of Shop no. 5, Prithviraj Market and other related information on 04 points. Having not received any information from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/131235 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2018, the appellant sought correspondence file page no. 100 in respect of Shop no. 5, Prithviraj Market. Having not received any information from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information, the appellant approached the Commission.
CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/131234 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.02.2018, the appellant sought file noting page no. 67N (Public Hearing by said NDMC on 28.11.2003) in respect of Shop no. 5, Prithviraj Market. Having not received any information from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Since the issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical in nature, they are being taken up together for hearing and adjudication.
Both the parties are present and heard at length. Narrating the common backdrop and grievance, the appellant submits that a shop bearing no 5 at Prithvi Raj market, New Delhi was leased in name of his deceased father. He submits that upon death of his father in year 2997, the ownership of the shop ought to have been transferred to the Legal Heirs of his father. He alleges that a partnership deed was fabricated by three of his brothers to the exclusion of two others (including the appellant) and on the basis of the same deed, NDMC transferred the ownership of the shop. He submits that the act of NDMC was unlawful for that it left out 2 legal heirs of the deceased allottee. He states that now NDMC has cancelled the allotment of shop and passed a eviction notice. He submits that all the RTI applications addressed to NDMC were w.r.t. the aforesaid grievance.
On the other hand, the PIO clarifies that the NDMC shops at Prithviraj Market are properties of NDMC which are allotted to various licencees and upon death of a licencee; his/ her legal heirs do not become owners. They may have right to inherit licence but in no way; the ownership of the shop vest in then. He states that the original licencee of shop in question has entered into partnership and thus on basis of such partnership, the licence was transferred to the surviving partners. He submits that the action of NDMC was lawful. However, the appellant submits that the matter is sub judice before Delhi High Court and Karkardooma District Court and the Secretary, NDMC had assured the Court of taking action as per law but that has not happened in the present case.
Decision:
The parties are involved in litigation and the Courts shall decide the inter-se substantive rights of the parties. However, the Commission finds that the appellant has been affected adversely by the action of NDMC, hence, in term sof Section 4(1)(d), he has a right to know the reasons of adverse decisions of NDMC whereby his claim of succeeding to the rights of his deceased father was not acceded to. The Commission after hearing the parties found the following contentious issues emerging:
(a). Whether the rights of a deceased allottee of NDMC property at Prithviraj Market devolve upon his LRs ? If yes, then why the appellant was left out arbitrarily by NDMC.
(b) Whether an individual allottee can transfer his right as licencee to a partnership validly? If yes, whether the surviving partners step into the shoes of deceased allottee for purposes of continuing the tenancy?
(c) Does a licencee or anyone claiming through him/her has a vested right to continue lease of the shops perpetually ? Could the shops at Prithviraj Market be sold by occupants?
NDMC is directed to examine the aforesaid points and answer the same in light of the policy of NDMC relating to leased properties. The same shall be made available to the Commission by 31.08.2018. A copy of the same shall be made available to the appellant. Let the policy of NDMC on transfer of rights of licencees be placed on website of NDMC proactively.
In the meanwhile, the PIO is directed to offer inspection of complete records relating to shop no. 5 as sought by appellant on a mutual convenient date and time. The appellant shall be entitled to obtain copies of records upon payment of usual charges. The appeals are disposed of.
(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