Central Information Commission
Geetika Chopra vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 October, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/169856
Geetika Chopra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Delhi Development ... ितवादी/Respondent
Authority, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12-06-2017 FA : 23-10-2017 SA : 30-11-2018
CPIO : 25-09-2020, 05-
FAO : 09-10-2018 Hearing: 09-10-2020
10-2020 & 08-10-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi seeking following information related to the DDA File No F87(M)/2005/GL for the leasehold plot located at Vardhman Premium Mall, New Delhi:-
"1.) Copy of Allottee/First Buyers List supplied by the Builder M/s Vardhman Properties Ltd. for the in-question DDA Leased property.
2) Copy of Building Plan sanctioned by DDA for the in-question DDA Leased property.
3) Copy of Lease Agreement Deed signed between DDA & M/s Vardhman Properties Ltd for the in-question DDA Leased property."
2. The CPIO responded on 25-09-2020, 05-10-2020 & 08-10-2020. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 23-10-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 09-10-2018. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal Page 1 of 3 action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Smt. Geetika Chopra was represented by Mr. Gaurav Chopra through audio conferencing. Mr. Nitin Chourasia, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The representative of the appellant stated that she owns a property in Vardhman Premium Mall, New Delhi and therefore, the respondent cannot deny her the sought for information.
5. The respondent contended that as per their record, the lessee of the property is M/s Vardhman Properties Ltd and the applicant is only a space buyer. Further, he submitted that the unit owned by the applicant has already been converted into the freehold property in July, 2017. He also submitted that the sanctioned Building Plan of Vardhman Premium Mall, LSC, Deepali, Pitampura, New Delhi had been examined and the file concerning the applicant's request is not traceable in their record and hence, sincere efforts are being made to locate the file and the same would be informed to the applicant on its availability.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the reply furnished by the CPIO is off the mark which does not refer to the queries raised by the appellant. The respondent has also not uploaded his written submissions timely. Mr. Nitin Chourasia, CPIO does not seem to know the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and has thus dealt with the RTI application in a very casual manner. This lackadaisical behavior has been seen in previous cases as well. Therefore, he is hereby issued a very strict warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This should be brought to the notice of his controlling officer.
7. This Commission further observes that the appellant owns a small property in the Vardhman Premium Mall, LSC, Deepali, Pitampura, New Delhi and therefore, she has every right to get the sought for information. In view of this, the CPIO is directed to send a revised reply to the appellant thereby quoting the specific exemption(s) wherever applicable, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. This Commission also directs the respondent to once again make due efforts to thoroughly search the records and furnish the same, if available, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. In case the CPIO is unable to trace the records, he shall furnish an Page 2 of 3 affidavit to the appellant thereby clearly indicating the efforts made by him for locating the record, within the next 15 working days under intimation to the CIC.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:09-10-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Delhi Development Authority, Dy. Director &
Nodal CPIO, RTI IMP. And Co-Ordination
Branch, C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
I. N. A., New Delhi-110023.
2. Geetika Chopra
Page 3 of 3