Central Information Commission
Suren Koundal vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DDATY/C/2022/649201
Suren Koundal ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Director (RTI Section),
Delhi Development Authority,
RTI Implementation & Coordination Branch ,
C-Block , 3rd Floor ,Vikas Sadan , INA Colony ,
New Delhi -110023. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.06.2024
Date of Decision : 13.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.02.2021
CPIO replied on : 29.06.2021
First appeal filed on : 21.06.2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.09.2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2021 seeking information on the subject DDA Flat under DDA Housing Scheme - 2019 (Narela - Pocket- 1A, Sector A1-4), including inter alia, Page 1 of 7 "(a). Total amount received in respect of above scheme in respect of MIG flats in following cases: -
(i) Amount received out of application for registration of the flat for above said MIG Flats.
(ii) From initial allottees who made successful payment
(b). Provide the information about total amount received from Delhi Police in respect of flats handed over to Delhi Police (200 flats in Sector A9 & 501 in A1-4)
(c). Seek physical inspection/access and copy thereof of all noting/all office records/files/letter/ agreement etc. as per section 2(f) read with section 2(j) & 2(i) of RTI act 2005 pertains to handing over of flats to Delhi police and the MIG Flats under reference.
(d). Seek physical inspection and copy thereof of all noting/all office records/files/letter/ agreement etc. as per section 2(f) read with section 2(j) & 2(i) of RTI act 2005 pertains to reducing construction cost of EWS flats by 40%."
The PIO/ Asstt. Dir. (MIG) Housing, DDA replied to the Complainant on 29.06.2021 by stating as under -
"The para wise reply of RTI are as under: (a) (i) DDA has launched Housing Scheme 2019 for allotment of flat and the applicants were given their preference for allotment. The record is not in the material form, hence, it is not possible to intimate how many applicants, have opted for Narela. (ii) 05 Nos. allottee. (b) As per MIG branch is concerned, flat allotted in Sec.A- 9 & A1-A4 Narela, as per report of Accounts branch an amount of Rs. 232,70,80,000/= has been received from Delhi police for 247 flats. (c) Due to Covid-19, public hearing is not allowed, hence inspection of files will be permitted once public hearing is opened by the competent authority. (d) Para pertains to EWS branch, hence para is being transferred to PIO/EWS."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2021. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the following grounds -
Page 2 of 7"10. Grounds for Complaint: The total time available for PIO to supply information is 30 days in terms of Section 7(1) read with section 7(3)(a) of the Act. However, the PIO neither communicated his decision on my RTI Application nor supplied information within stipulated time limit of 30 days.
No response on the part of PIO is a deemed denial of information in terms of section 7(2) of RTI Act, 2005.
However, on filing first appeal on 21-06-2021, CPIOs/PIOs woke up and provided partial/no reply/unsatisfactory reply in a very casual way which was evident from the tabular reply as above. CPIOs/PIOs and First appellant authority are not interested to provide information. They have dealt the application in very casual manner and in this process make mockery of the RTI act 2005, which is clearly evident from following points: -
i) Reply to question a(i) shows that there is no coordination between CPIOs of DDA as one CPIOs is providing some information on 30-06-2021 and other is saying vide his reply dt 29-06-2021 that no such information exists on record. However, it is pertinent to note here that First appeal has been disposed off on 29-06-2021 saying that the reply has been provided by the CPIOs without giving any chance of personal hearing which was actually requested.
ii) There was no reply provided to question number a(ii). DDA fails to understand what was asked.
iii) DDA has mislead the applicant time and again and always tried to mask his undoing. In the eyes of DDA, RTI act is a useless act which is there to only make mockery of it. The same is evident from the reply of various CPIOs of DDA as regard to reply of question (b) above in table. For a similar question DDA has already intimated that total of 701 flats have been given to Delhi Police however, DDA here talking about payment of 247 flats, which is contradictory.
iv) No opportunities have been given for inspection of documents in DDA office in reference to question number (c) and (d) instead the DDA has tried to casually shed the responsibility of complying RTI act 2005.
How come first appellant authority can dispose of the appeal firstly without giving personal hearing, secondly FA has disposed off the appeal on 29-06- 2021 saying reply has been provided by CPIO, whereas his CPIO is replying Page 3 of 7 on either same day or on 30-06-2021 which shows very casual attitude from FA as well as CPIOs and their malafide intention. CPIOs/PIOs has rejected my request for information and First Appellate Authority has rejected my First Appeal without providing me opportunity of hearing or has rejected my First Appeal without sufficient cause. The Appellant strongly believes that respondents have malafidely denied the information. This is completely against the spirit of RTI Act, 2005."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Sushant, Assistant Director/PIO, DDA along with Mr. Neeraj Kumar, AD (Systems)/PIO, DAA and Mr. Vikash Gaurav, AD (EWS), DDA present in person.
Written submissions filed by the Respondents are taken on record.
The Complainant while reiterating the contents of this complaint stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that neither proper reply has been provided to him nor opportunity of inspection of record has been afforded to him despite lifting of Covid restrictions. Moreover, the FAA has not given any opportunity for personal hearing.
The contents of written submission dated 07.08.2023 filed by Mr. Neeraj Kumar, PIO/AD (System), DDA are reproduced below -
"...In this regard it is to be informed that the RTI Application vide RTI Request no. DDAYT/R/E/21/01153/1 was received on 28.06.2021. Only the information requested point 4 (a) (i) of the RTI application was available in the computerized records available with the System department of DDA. Accordingly, the part RTI application was replied on 30.06.2021 (may refer to the attached screenshot of online portal, For information requested in point 4a(ii), 4(b) and 4(c) the concerned PIO, MIG Branch of Housing department submitted its response on 29.06.2021 in response to part DDAYT/R/E/21/01153/ 1 of RTI.Page 4 of 7
Information requested in point 4(d) pertains to EWS branch."
Contents of reply dated 30.06.2021 are as under -
"With respect to point 4 (a) (i) of your RTI application it is stated that as per available records with the department initially, total 87 applicant applied with 1st preference as Narela MIG. INR 1,74,00,000/- were received as registration amount from them. Other parts of the RTI does not pertain to this department."
The contents of written submission dated 30.05.2024 filed by Mr. Mr. Sushant, Asstt. Director/PIO, DDA are reproduced below -
"...In this regard, it is informed that the RTI application vide RTI Request No. DDATY/R/E/21/01153/2 was transferred in this office on 17/06/2021 and the same was replied on 29/06/2021. For point (d), matter pertains to EWS branch and the same was transferred on the online RTI portal.
Further, an appeal was received in this branch on 21/06/2021 and the same was disposed of within stipulated time.
In view of the above, it is submitted that PIO/MIG-Housing has provided the desired information to the applicant as per available records as per RTI Act, 2005."
The Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of their averred written submissions stated that point-wise reply has been provided to the Complainant while for point (d), RTI Application was transferred to the PIO, EWS branch, DDA, New Delhi for providing the information directly to the Complainant.
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding reply against Point d of the RTI application, Mr. Vikash Gaurav, AD/PIO EWS branch submitted that since the file records of EWS construction includes personal data of allottees, their bank account transaction, ID, etc. which being confidential in nature cannot be shared with the Complainant. However, this fact has not been given in writing as a reply to the Complainant.Page 5 of 7
The Commission further asked the Respondents as to whether any opportunity of inspection was offered to the Complainant against Point (c) and (d) after lifting of the Covid restrictions, they answered in negative.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent against Points (a) and (b) of RTI Application vide letter dated 29.06.2021 as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
However, the Commission is unhappy with the conduct of Mr. Naresh Kumar and Mr. Akshay Kumar, Assistant Director-cum-the then PIO, MIG Housing, DDA, New Delhi for not making efforts to afford opportunity of inspection of records to the Complainant even after lifting of Covid restriction against Point
(c) of RTI Application.
Similarly, the Commission takes grave exception to the approach of the then PIO, EWS Branch, DDA New Delhi and Mr. Vikash Gaurav, present PIO/AD (EWS), DDA New Delhi for not giving any response against point (d) of the RTI Application within stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act. Moreover, no plausible explanation for such a delay was tendered by the Respondents during the hearing. This causal approach of the incumbent PIOs causes unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant's right to information which is not appreciated.
In view of the above, Mr. Naresh Kumar and Mr. Akshay Kumar, Assistant Director-cum-the then PIO, MIG Housing, DDA, New Delhi along with the concerned then PIO, EWS Branch, DDA New Delhi and Mr. Vikash Gaurav, present PIO/AD (EWS), DDA New Delhi are show caused as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The written explanations of the PIOs along with supporting documents, if any, must reach Page 6 of 7 the Commission within 4 weeks of the date of receipt of this order. Mr. Vikash Gaurav, present PIO/AD (EWS), DDA New Delhi should serve a copy of this order to the concerned then PIOs for timely compliance of the directions.
First Appellant Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Delhi Development Authority, RTI Implementation & Coordination Branch , C-Block , 3rd Floor ,Vikas Sadan , INA Colony , New Delhi -110023 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)