Central Information Commission
Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary vs Delhi Development Authority on 17 September, 2019
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/2018/115957-BJ
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Nodal Officer
RTI Cell, Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
2. CPIO and Assistant Engineer
Building Section,
C-1, 2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.09.2019
Date of Decision : 17.09.2019
Date of RTI application 10.06.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 08.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the details relating to sanction of Building Plan, Maps/details of land use/details of lands allotted, etc. and other relevant documents in respect of M2K Victoria Garden at Azadpur, New Delhi Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary;
Respondent: Mr. Roshan Lal, Asst. Engineer, Page 1 of 5 Third Party: Mr. Sumesh, AGM, M2K, Mr. Anil Kumar, Legal Manager and Mr. R. Bhinda, Estate Manager;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not provided to him. While acknowledging that several matters pertaining to the alleged illegality/ irregularity in the process of land allotment for construction of M2K Victoria Garden was already heard and decided by the High Court of Delhi/ District Court- Rohini, the Appellant submitted that the same were not relevant for the RTI application under consideration. While submitting that no direction was pronounced by any Court which debarred him from filing RTI application on the issue. He therefore prayed for disclosure of sanctioned building plan and allotment of flats by the Respondent. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 17.08.2017 they had sought the consent of the Third Party for the disclosure of information which was denied vide letter dated 23.08.2017. The representative of the Third Party, at the outset objected to the RTI application/ First Appeal being filed by the President of the Janhit Sewa Samiti (NGO) and not by an individual in contravention to Section 3 of the RTI Act, 2005. While stating, that the Appellant had resorted to filing multiple RTI application on the same subject matter since the year 2013, the representative of the Third Party submitted that vide its order dated 04.02.2014 in WP (C) 820/ 2014, the High Court of Delhi had disposed the writ petition filed by the Appellant on the ground that the averments made in the petition did not throw any light on the locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition. In the said matter, the counsel for the Appellant prayed to withdrawn the petition with liberty to file an appropriate petition for being placed before the Division Bench as a PIL which was allowed by the Court. The representative of the Third Party thereafter referred to the order of the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 2208/2014 dated 16.07.2014, wherein while disposing off the writ petition, the Division Bench of the Court took cognizance of the submissions made by the Respondent that all encroachments which had been complained of by the petitioner had been removed by them and as on now there was no encroachment and the entire construction was within the demarcated area of 4.54 acres. In the said matter, the DDA had further submitted that in case the petitioner or anybody else points out any future encroachment, they shall take action to remove the same immediately. A reference was also made to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 5305/2015 dated 27.05.2015 wherein the Court while referring to its earlier decision in WP (C) 2208/2014 observed that no fresh encroachments after 16.07.2014 had been pointed out in the petition. In the said matter, the petitioner sought to withdraw his writ petition. Similarly, a reference was made to the order of the High Court of Delhi in Cont. Cas (C) 6/2016 and CM APPL 93-94/2016 dated 11.01.2016; order of the SCJ cum RC (North) Rohini Courts in CS No. 75/17 New No. 527/17 dated 22.11.2017 wherein the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Similarly, a reference was also made to the order of the SCJ cum RC (North) Rohini Courts in New No. 37804/17 dated 15.03.2017 and in CS No. 260/ 14 New CS No. 535643/16 dated 06.09.2018. The Appellant contested the aforementioned submissions of the Third Party and submitted that in the present instance he was only seeking information from the Respondent Public Authority and that the decisions cited above pertained to the adjudication of dispute on the issue of encroachment of land.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Third Party dated 13.09.2019 wherein at the outset it was stated that no public interest was involved in the RTI application which was filed purely with a personal/ vested interest. It was thereafter inter alia stated that the Appellant had filed numerous RTI applications on the same or similar or slightly altered information/ subject/ issue with respect to the said project and the DDA had already provided a response to earlier RTI filed by the Appellant. A reference was made to the RTI applications/ Page 2 of 5 Appeals dated 18.02.2013, 22.07.2013, 17.10.2014, 28.11.2014, 18.12.2014, 10.02.2015, 18.08.2015, 24.08.2015, 06.05.2016 and 10.06.2017 filed with the DDA, MoUD, Lieutenant Governor and other Revebue Authorities on similar issues which were responded vide letters dated 21.02.2013, 10.04.2013, 04.06.2013, 20.06.2013, 21.06.2013, 24.06.2013, 26.04.2013, 01.07.2013, 02.08.2013 and 18.12.2014. In the context of multiple RTI applications filed by the Appellant a reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation. It was further stated by the Third Party that on the basis of earlier information received from Public Authority under RTI, various litigations were filed by the Appellant against the Company (Public Authority being also a Respondent Party in Litigation) before Delhi High Court (4 petitions) and District Court Rohini (2 petitions) wherein DDA was also made a Party by concealment of fact by raising allegation of encroachment by the Third Party Company in the Project Land beyond the 4.5 acre land in the said project and all the petitions filed by the Appellant were dismissed by the Delhi High Court by holding that there was no locus standi of the Appellant and that there was no encroachment in the Project Land in any manner and the entire construction was within the demarcated area of 4.53 Acres.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, attention of the attendees was drawn towards the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ferani Hotels Private Limited vs. the State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 9064-9065 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32073-32074/ 2015) dated 27.09.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court has directed to disclose the building plans, sanctioned plans, and details of commercial establishments in the public domain. The relevant observations made in the decision are mentioned hereunder:
"15.............In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, there is no mandate on an applicant to give any reason for requesting the information, i.e., anybody should be able to obtain the information as long as it is part of the public record of a public authority. Thus, even private documents submitted to public authorities may, under certain situations, form part of public record. In this behalf, we may usefully refer to Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defining 'public documents' as under:
74. Public documents - The following documents are public documents:-
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts--
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;"
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
16. The only exemption from disclosure of information, of whatever nature, with the public authority is as per Sections 8 & 9 of the said Act. Thus, unless the information sought for falls under these provisions, it would be mandatory for the public authorities to disclose the information to an applicant."
Page 3 of 523. The fate of purchase of land development and investments is a matter of public knowledge and debate. Any judicial pronouncement must squarely weigh in favour of the fullest disclosure, in this behalf........
24. In the aforesaid circumstances, even by a test of public interest, it can hardly be said that the same would not apply in matters of full disclosure of information of development plans to all and everyone.....
26. Similarly, clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act ex facie would have no relevance. There is no 'personal information' of which disclosure is sought. Further it cannot be said that it has no relation to public activity or interest, or that it is unwarranted, or there is an invasion of privacy. These are documents filed before public authorities, required to be put in public domain, by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act and the RERA, and involves a public element of making builders accountable to one and all......
34. In the end, we would like to say that keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan. The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA require the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority. In our view, keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA"
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.09.2018 cited above, the Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and provide the copies of the sanctioned building plans to the Appellant as sought in the RTI application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
Page 4 of 5
दनांक / Date: 17.09.2019
Copy to:-
1. Vice Chairman, DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023
2. The Pr. Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, B-Block, 4th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.Page 5 of 5