Central Information Commission
Ashok Prabhakar vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 7 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/117795
Mr. Ashok Prabhakar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतिािी/Respondent
Dy. Director-(Estate-I),
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Estate-I Department, Palika Kendra,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Date of Impugned Order: 13.08.2018
Date of Hearing: 27.01.2024
Order w.r.t disposal of Non-Compliance: 02-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
ORDER
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint dated 12.11.2018 for non- compliance of CIC's order dated 13.08.2018 in the above matter.
2. The above-mentioned appeal of the appellant, Shri. Ashok Prabhakar was disposed of by the Commission on 13.08.2018 wherein following observations and directions are given:
Page 1 of 5"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 terms of 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 license 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 license 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 the 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 mutually convenient date and time. The appellant shall be entitled to obtain copies of records upon payment of usual charges. The appeals are disposed of."
3. The CPIO, in compliance of the order dated 31.08.2018 of the Commission provided the point-wise reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 31.10.2018, stating as under-
"(a) Shop No. 5 Prithvi Raj Market was originally allotted to Sh. Sita Ram.
Later on, it was transferred to Sh. Sushil Prabhakar (Grandson) vide Council Resolution No. 5 dated 09.07.1971 and Licence Deed executed on Page 2 of 5 30.07.1971 in accordance with a will dated 07.04.1952 executed before his death. Shop No. 27 Prithvi Raj Market was initially allotted to Sh. Shyam Lal Prabhakar. A partnership dated 22.03.1997 is on record between Sh. Shyam Lal Prabhakar and his three sons out of five. The appellant Sh. Ashok Prabhakar is challenging this Partnership Deed on various forums. Presently the matter sub-judice before the Ld. Estate Officer for eviction and recovery of damages u/s 5 & 7 of the Public Premise (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971.
(b) Yes. The policy of NDMC permits such transfer on partnership basis with subject to enhancement in the existing Licence Fee. Any such unit regularized on partnership basis. The same can be further regularized in favour of the surviving partners subject to the merits of the case and completion of required formalities in terms of the prevailing Policy of the NDMC.
(c) No. The public premises (built up shops/units) in NDMC area is allotted only on Licence fee basis for a fixed term which is presently for 10 years and may be renewed subsequently in terms of the prevailing policy of the NDMC. No. The shops at Prithvi Raj Market are public premises and thus cannot be sold."
4. The Appellant vide his letter dated 12.11.2018 reported non-compliance of the above order stating that the information furnished by the CPIO was fake, Incomplete and misleading. He prayed to the Commission that a necessary inquiry and action should be taken against the Respondent as per the provisions of RTI Act.
5. The Registry of this Bench vide letter dated 18.01.2024 had sought comments from the CPIO on the non-compliance complaint filed by the Appellant.
Page 3 of 5Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mohd. Sabir, Dy. Director and PIO, Estate- I Department present in person.
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding the factual status of the compliance of above order, the Respondent tendered his apology by inter alia stating that he was not the then PIO at the time of receipt of the order dated 31.08.2018 and was not aware of the factual position. He further stated that he was not in possession of the records pertaining to instant case. He sought adjournment in the matter which was denied by the Commission.
Decision:
6. The Commission after perusal of records, observes that the CIC's order dated 31.08.2018 has already been complied by the then CPIO vide letter dated 31.10.2018 by furnishing the relevant permissible information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant did not turn up during hearing to plead his case, despite service of notice in advance. In view of this, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
7. Be that as it may, the Commission adversely viewed the conduct of the Respondent in coming unprepared while representing the case at the time hearing. In this regard, the Respondent is advised to exercise due diligence and Page 4 of 5 always make themselves well acquainted with the proper facts of the case in hand while appearing before the Commission.
The non-compliance petition is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Date 02-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यावपत प्रनत) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 5 of 5