Central Information Commission
Surender Nath vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 May, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DDATY/A/2017/162131
Surender Nath .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(Housing), Delhi
Development Authority, Housing Branch,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Colony, New Delhi-110023.
2. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Additional Director of Education-(South),
Directorate of Education (Government of
NCT of Delhi), South District, Sector-3,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110022.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Date of decision : 19.03.2019 Date of disposal non compliance order : 30.05.2022 Non-Compliance Order The Commission has received a letter from the appellant dated 06.05.2019 alleging that the order of the Commission in the referred case has not been complied by the PIO. In view of the foregoing, Commission deemed it expedient to call explanation from the then PIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to comply with the directions of the Commission. The relevant portion of the averred order is reproduced hereinafter:
• Written Submission of the PIO dated 19.05.2022 received pursuant to the notice of the Commission, as under:
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellane: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Dalip Kumar, Nodal PIO, DDA, present in person. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO. He further stated the factual matrix of his case and stated that DDA floated and awarded tenders for constructing 3 bedroom flats, however, the Contractor constructs only
2 bedroom flats. He further stated that on the record DDA pays Contractor for constructing 3 bedroom flats as per tender but actually pays only for constructing 2 bedroom flat. He therefore requested the Commission to look into the matter.
The PIO submitted that upon receipt of Commissions hearing notice a fresh point wise reply enumerating all the details was also provided to the appellant on 19.05.2022. He further affirmed that he would comply with the directions of the Commission, if any in the matter.
Decision:
Commission upon perusal of facts on record and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that whatever information was available in their records has already been provided to the appellant on 19.05.2022 and same is deemed apt. Further, Commission on the basis of submission of the Appellant during hearing observes that relief sought by him during hearing is to seek redressal of his grievance regarding alleged deficiency in the allotment of DDA Flat which is not information as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. It may be noted that under RTI Act, PIO is not supposed to create/interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance such as averred by the appellant during the course of hearing, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The noncompliance proceedings are disposed of with aforementioned directions Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514