Central Information Commission
Shi Parveen Kumar Verma vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) on 9 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00440 dated 11.4.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shi Parveen Kumar Verma
Respondent - Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
Facts:
By an application of 28.12.06 Shri Parveen Verma of Rohini, Delhi applied to SE, HQ Sector 3 Rohini, DDA Delhi seeking the following information:
1. "As per Central Information Commission appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00368 dated 26.6.2008 RTI Act 2006 Seat 16 (copy enclosed). It is admitted by CPIO and Shri J. M. Joshi (Chief Eng) 1st Appellate that whose flats are above the stilted portion garage will not be provided and it is a statement of policy. Draft of the policy may kindly be provided and who is the competent authority to approve the policy?
2. Is there any other site of DDA in Delhi other than Block- C Section-
18 Rohini where garages have not been provided to whose flats are above the stilted portion? If yes, please give details?
3. Please give following information's point wise related to flat No. - 55 and flat No. -45, Block-5 Sector-18 Rohini.
S. Flat No. 55 Flat No.
No. 45
1. Cost of the flat?
2. Scooter garage no. allotted?
3. Dimensional size of the allotted scooter garage?
4. Constructed cost of the allotted scooter garage and whether the Constriction cost is included with cost of the flat?
5. Possession dates of the flat and scooter garage?
On not receiving a response he moved his first appeal on 31.1.07 before the Chief Engineer, Appellate Authority, DDA Sector 3. Upon this he received the following reply from Chief Engineer, Rohini through a letter of 22.2.07:
Para Reply S. Para No. 3 Flat No. 55 Flat No. 45 No. 1. Cost of the flat This par pertains to Jt. FA This par pertains to Jt. FA 1 (H) DDA, a copy of your (H) DDA, a copy of your application has already application has already been endorsed to PIO/ Jt. been endorsed to PIO/ Jt. FA(H)/DDA vide this office FA(H)/DDA vide this office letter of even No. 424 letter of even No. 424 dated 14.2.07, a copy of dated 14.2.07, a copy of which has also been which has also been endorsed to you. endorsed to you. 2. Scooter garage Parking space provided in Parking space provided in No. allotted garage No. 42 stilted portion flat Nos. 42 to 47. 3. Dimension size The dimension space The parking space of allotted provided in garage is 1.18 provided for the said flat in scooter garage mx2.54=3.00 spm. the stilted portion is 77.855/6=12.98 sq.m. 4. Construction This par pertains to Jt. FA This par pertains to Jt. FA cost of the (H) DDA, a copy of your (H) DDA, a copy of your allotted scooter application has already application has already garage and been endorsed to PIO/ Jt. been endorsed to PIO/ Jt. whether the FA(H)/DDA vide this office FA(H)/DDA vide this office const. Cost is letter of even No. 424 letter of even No. 424 included with dated 14.2.07, a copy of dated 14.2.07, a copy of cost the flat? which has also been which has also been endorsed to you. endorsed to you. 5. Possession Flat on 25.2.2000. Flat on 11.02.2000 dates of the flat and scooter Garage on 8.11.2005 Garage not applicable garage? 6. Why possession The possession of the Not applicable. of garage could garage could not given at not be given at the time of giving the time of possession of the flat, giving because as per allotment possession of letter, specific number of the flat? garage allotted to the concerned flat was not mentioned. The necessary clarification in this regard is being furnished by the office of Dir. (Housing)/ PIO to whom the copy of your application has already been sent with the request to send the reply directly to the applicant. 2
Shri Parveen Verma has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is requested to arrange to provide the asked information's (sic)."
In response to the Appeal Notice, Shri J. K. Garg, PIO & S.E. HQ stating, with regard to the draft of the policy sought by appellant, as follows :
"Further it is informed that there is no written policy available on record in this regard";
has also submitted that a similar unit plan/architectural drawing has also been implemented in Block E Sector 15 Rohini.
The appeal was heard on 19.6.2008. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Parveen K Verma Respondents Shri S. R. Solanki, C.E. (RZ) Shri J. K. Garg, PIO, SE (HQ), Rohini Shri S.C.Goyal, S.E., C.C. 6 Shri V.K. Sharma, EE, RPD2 Appellant Shri Parveen Kumar submitted that in disposing of an earlier RTI application, the decision made on 21.12.06 in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00368 has motivated him to move for the draft of the policy. Therefore, the contention now that there was no policy was misleading and contradictory. This was in answer to his request as to whether this was a policy matter that independent garage will not be provided to those flats above the stilted portion. In our earlier decision we have held that the response of the CPIO was a statement on policy and therefore we had come to the following conclusion:
"In light of the above, we find the information sought by appellant has in fact been provided. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of application of mind at the level of Appellate Authority Commissioner (Housing) who has directed that information be sought from Shri S.P. Satsangi, PIO and Additional Chief Architect in a matter in which information had already been provided. This has put all parties to unnecessary inconvenience and correspondence. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. Appellant Shri P.K. Verma is advised that if there is any further information regarding 3 this policy or any flaw in the information provided, he is free to make a fresh application in this regard."
He also submitted that infact in Block E, Sector 12, the position of garages is different to what respondents contended, and this information is, therefore, misleading.
DECISION NOTICE Having examined File No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00368 and heard the arguments afresh, we confirm our decision in the earlier case that the CPIO's statement was indeed a statement on policy arrived at in the DDA, but this did not necessarily imply that this was a written policy. Appellant Shri PK Verma has now been informed that this policy is not recorded.
However, on the issue of misleading information having been provided with regard to Block E, Sector 15, Rohini, PIO Shri J.K.Garg is directed to enquire into this matter and report his conclusions to us within 15 days from the date of issue of this Decision Notice. If it is found that if the fact that the information provided is incorrect is established, Director (Planning) Rohini will be asked to explain the reasons for this error.
Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced after studying the previous file, this 9th day of July, 2008 in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 9.7.2008 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 9.7.2008 5