Central Information Commission
Dheeraj Pratap Sirohi vs Delhi Development Authority on 21 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/DDATY/A/2023/650716
CIC/DDATY/A/2023/655877
Dheeraj Pratap Sirohi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Asstt. Director -RTI Section
DDA, RTI Implementation
Coordination Branch, C-Block
3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
New Delhi-110023
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025
Date of Decision : 21.03.2025
: Vinod Kumar Tiwari
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.09.2023/22.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.11.2023
The issues raised by the appellant in both the above cases file Nos.
CIC/DDATY/A/2023/650716 and CIC/DDATY/A/2023/655877 are identical.
Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both cases.
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"I understand that the main file numbered M/339 (35) 2010/AAY/NA concerned with the allotment of flat number 629, PKT-2 Sector A-10 Narela Delhi-40 is not traceable at the instant. Kindly provide the following information:
1. When was the above file last seen and under which officer?
2. When did you realize that the files are missing?
3. What action did you initiate to trace the missing files?
4. How many flats in Pocket 2, Sector 10A Narela were allotted under Ambedkar Awaas Yojana - 1989? Also, provide their number.
5. When was Ambedkar Awaas Yojana - 1989 launched to allot flats in PKT-2 Sector A-10 Narela Delhi-40"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.09.2023 & 22.09.2023 stating as under:
"Reply dt. 18/09/23 For point 1 to 3, information sought is third party and cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
"Reply dt. 22/09/23 Does not pertain to this branch. RTI transferred to concerned branch. "
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 30.10.2023, held as under.
"This office has received your RTI Appeal dated 29/09/2023 in this office on RTI-MIS portal.
In this regard, for point 1 to 3, the PIO has already replied on 18/09/2023 at the RTI-MIS portal.
For points 4 and 5, no such information is available in this branch. Matter pertains to System branch."Page 2 of 5
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Sushant, Asstt. Director (MIG)-H/PIO, Ms. Priya Aggarwal, Asstt. Director/RTI, Shri Himanshu Yadav, JSA/RTI and Shri Viswas Bansal, Asstt. Director (SYS) appeared in person.
Shri Sushant, Asstt. Director (MIG)-H/PIO, had filed detailed written submissions dated 07.03.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"This office has received Notice of Hearing for appeal/complaint vide letter Nо. F11(28140)25 RTI/DDA/06 and F11(28140)25/RTI/DDA/07 dated 05/03/2025 from DD(RTI) In this regard. it is informed that the online RTI request of the applicant vide number DDATY RE/23 02396 dated 29 08/2023 was replied timely on 18/09/2023 for the points pertaining to this office and for point 4 and
5. RTI was transferred to concerned PIO.
Further, it is informed that as per the available information in this office, the flat stands in the name of different allottee (other than the applicant) and the applicant has not submitted any documents showing his ownership locus standi for the flat.
Further, an appeal was received in this office on 29/09/2023 and the same was replied on 30 10 2023.
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 respondents submitted that they had responded to the RTI queries within the stipulated time and reiterated that the appellant was not the allottee of Page 3 of 5 the flat in question. Therefore, information on point Nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application was denied being third-party information.
As regard point No. 4 of the RTI application, Shri Viswas Bansal, Asstt. Director (SYS) submitted that after receipt of hearing notice, he collected the data from the concerned department and expressed his desire to provide the same to the appellant. Against point No. 5, he stated that specific details were unavailable, generic information regarding the scheme could be shared with the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the respondents have replied to the RTI application and the first appeal vide letters dated 18.09.2023, 22.09.2023 and 30.10.2023. The respondent submitted that the appellant was not the allottee of the flat No. 629, PKT-2 Sector A-10 Narela Delhi-40 about which the information was sought. Therefore, the information sought on point Nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application was denied to the appellant on the ground of it being third party information and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.
As regard point No. 4 of the RTI application, Shri Viswas Bansal, Asstt. Director (SYS) expressed his willingness to share data regarding the number of allotted flats under the scheme. Against point No. 5, he stated that specific information sought was not available with him. However, generic information about the scheme was available with him which can be provided to the appellant.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that replies given by the respondent on point Nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI application are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention of the Commission is not required on these points. Further, the Commission directs the concerned respondent to provide the revised reply to the appellant as per the records available with them and as per their oral submissions during the hearing on Page 4 of 5 point Nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
FAA Asstt. Director -RTI Section DDA, RTI Implementation Coordination Branch, C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)