Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Jain vs Delhi Development Authority on 15 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/110270 and
CIC/DDATY/A/2024/121758
Anil Kumar Jain .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
Asst. Director (IL), Delhi
Development Authority, 2nd
Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New
Delhi - 110023
2. CPIO,
THE CPIO DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY Asst. Director
(LM)-SZ. Delhi Development
Authority, A Block, Ground
Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi - 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 27.08.2025
Date of Decision : 15.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/110270
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.12.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
Page 1 of 7
First appeal filed on : 14.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Compliance of FAA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I am the Secretary of Sri Aurobindo Education Society and also the Manager of The Mother's International School, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016.
I may please be provided with the certified copies of all the papers /documents/any other noting/maps and plans along with the file cover (back-to-back) contained in under mentioned file number-
File No. F3(3)16/DD/LM/SWZ/DDA Section - LM/SWZ"
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2024. The FAA's order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2024/121758 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.03.2024 CPIO replied on : 24.06.2024 First appeal filed on : 25.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record Compliance of FAA order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.04.2024 Information sought:
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
Page 2 of 7"I am the secretary of Sri Aurobindo Education Society and also the Manager of The Mother's International School, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110016.
1. I may please be provided with the certified copies of all the papers/documents/any other notings/maps and plans along with the file cover (back back) related to Demolition Notice No. F3(3) 16/DD/LM/SWZ/DDA/970 dated October 10, 2023 of Dy. Director, LM/South Zone -I, Delhi Development Authority, Office of the Deputy Director (LM) SZ, C-Block Ground Floor, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi served to Sri Aurobindo Education Society/School/Ashram, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Adhchini, New Delhi-110017.
2. I will pay the requisite fee as applicable under RTI Act 2005. I may please be informed of the amount that is required to be paid by me for getting certified copies of all the papers/documents contained in above mentioned Demolition Notice Number."
5. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.06.2024 stating as under:
"The undersigned has received RII application under RTI Act regarding File No. F3(3)16/DD/LM/SWZ/DDA/970 Dt. 10/10/2023. In this regard it is stated that as per the details provided by the revenue staff of L.M/SZ, a demolition programme was fixed by DDA. but the same could not be carried out due to Hon'ble High Court Order (copy of order along with copy of demolition notice is attached herewith). The delay in reply to the RTI is deeply regretted."
6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 7Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with Shri Yogesh Sharma in person. Respondents: Respondent No. 1. Shri Aatish Gupta, Assistant Director (IL), appeared in person.
Respondent No. 2. Shri Neeraj Gupta, Assistant Director, LM/SZ-1, appeared in person.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
8. The Appellant inter alia submitted that complete and correct information was not provided by the Respondent till the date of hearing.
9. The Respondent No. 1, while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertains to Land Management Division, DDA, therefore, RTI application and hearing notice were transferred to them. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that they vide letter dated 22.08.2025 provided the information to the Appellant, contents of the same are reproduced as under:
"In this connection, it is stated that the copies of file noting related to the demolition notice and the copy of demolition notice is enclosed herewith."
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observed that the information sought by the Appellant through his RTI applications dated 22.12.2023 and 22.03.2024 was provided after an inordinate delay of more than one and half years from the date of filing of the RTI applications. Such delayed response defeats the very purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which mandates timely dissemination of information to citizens. The Commission finds no reason for interfering with the same.
Page 4 of 711. The Commission takes a serious view of the apathy shown in handling the RTI applications. Accordingly, the Commission cautions Shri Aatish Gupta, Assistant Director (IL)-cum-present PIO, as well as Shri Laxman, Assistant Director-the then PIO, for their failure to respond to the RTI applications within the stipulated time period. They are warned to be careful and diligent in handling RTI matters in future, failing which the Commission may be constrained to initiate penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
12. Notwithstanding above, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer to its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
Page 5 of 7"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to the Vice Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The Vice Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances.
Page 6 of 7In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
Shri N. Saravana Kumar, Vice Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, B- Block, INA, New Delhi - 110023 The FAA Deputy Director (IL), Delhi Development Authority, 2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)