Satyendra Nath Dutta vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 February, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Satyendra Nath Dutta vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 February, 2022

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.:                       CIC/DDATY/C/2020/137015

 Satyendra Nath Dutta                                   ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Assistant Director-(Housing), Delhi Development
 Authority, Housing Branch, D-Block, Vikas Sadan,
 INA Colony, New Delhi-110023.

 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Assistant Director-(RTI Section), Delhi Development
 Authority, RTI Implementation & Coordination Branch,
 C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Colony,
 New Delhi-110023.
                                                          ...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:

  RTI application filed on          :   09.08.2019
  CPIO replied on                   :   Not on record
  First appeal filed on             :   Not on record
  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
  Complaint received at CIC         :   26.11.2020
  Date of Hearing                   :   24.02.2022
  Date of Decision                  :   24.02.2022


                      सूचना आयुक्त: श्री हीरालाल सामररया
             Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya


  Information sought

The Complainant sought information:

Page 1 of 5

Written submission of the PIO dated 16.02.2019 is as under:

Grounds for Complaint:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Complainant.

Page 2 of 5

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

Complainant: present in person.

Respondent: Mr. Sushant, AD (Coord-H) & PIO, present in person.

Complainant reiterated the factual matrix of the case and stated that he had applied under the DDA Housing scheme and to get the allotment, he was compelled to run pillar to post by the department. He expressed his anguish towards the lackadaisical conduct of the DDA and requested the Commission to look into the matter.

Commission interjected and remarked that ambit of RTI Act is only restricted to the disclosure of the information as available on record and redressal of service or pay related grievance as averred by Appellant is outside the adjudicatory power of the Commission as envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005.

PIO submitted that point wise information has already been provided to the Complainant on 17.05.2021. He further stated that there were only 2 flats for people wit disability and there was total 39 applicants including the complainant. Therefore, non-allotment of the said flat was sheer luck and not the departmental lapse.

Complainant interjected to state that there is corruption in the department and produced a copy of the newspaper cutting in corroboration of the same. He further requested the Commission to direct the PIO to provide all the relevant information sought for.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the PIO. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the PIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.

Now, Commission takes into consideration the averment of the Complainant regarding dissatisfaction towards the information provided to him, however, no relief can be ordered in the matter in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in Page 3 of 5 directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."

xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him.

The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."

xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."

No further action lies.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Page 4 of 5

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission