Central Information Commission
Phoolwati vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 November, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
Files No. CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303711/KY CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303787/KY
CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303788/KY CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303796/KY
CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303799/KY CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303837/KY
CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303838/KY CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303839/KY
CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303840/KY CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303841/KY
CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303842/KY CIC/DDATY/A/2016/303850/KY
Complainant : i) Shri Shravan Kumar
S/o. Shri BhawanSwarup
G-247, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
ii) Shri Panna lal
S/o. Shri Revti Prasad
G-197, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
iii) Shri Rajesh
S/o. Shri Pannalal
G-246, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
iv) Shri Chirjee
S/o. Shri BabuLal
K-190, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
v) Shri Yadram
S/o. Shri Man Singh
K-21, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
vi) Shri Satish
S/o. Shri Nainsuk
G-234, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
vii) Shri Mahesh Kumar
S/o. Shri Maniram
F-1217, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
Page 1 of 5
viii) Shri Ved Prakash
S/o. Shri Kalicharan
G-167, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
ix) Smt. Shakuntala
D/W/o. Shri Kailash
G-181, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
x) Ms. Shashi
D/W/o. Shri Shankar Lal
G-152, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
xi) Smt. Pushpa
D/W/o- Shri Ashok
G-233A, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
xii) Shri Ram Swarup
S/o. Bhawani Shankar
G-165, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039
Public Authority : The Dy. Director (LM) NZ & CPIO
DDA, O/o. Dy. Director (LM) NZ,
LSC, LU Block, Pitampura, Delhi-110088
Date of Hearing : 27.10.2016
Date of Decision : 27.10.2016
Presence:
Complainant : Shri Shravan Kumar, Shri Panna lal, Shri Rajesh, Shri Chirjee,
Shri Yadram, Shri Satish, Shri Mahesh Kumar, Shri Ved Prakash,
Smt. Shakuntala, Ms. Shashi, Smt. Pushpa, Shri Ram Swarup
CPIO : Absent
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated NIL, the Complainant sought information on 8 issues. II. CPIO, vide its response dated 13.06.2016, has provided the information to the Complainant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on NIL, as desired information not provided. IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), order is not on record. V. Grounds for the Complaint filed on NIL, are contained in the Memorandum of Complaint.
Page 2 of 5HEARING Complainant appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length. Respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them.
DECISION At the outset, it is to be seen here that all twelve complaints are based upon complainants' RTI application dated NIL. It is further to be seen that subject matter of all these twelve RTI applications are same. Thus, in view of this, these twelve cases are being dealt with together accordingly. Further it is stated here that as per the contents of the prayer clause as embedded in the instant petitions, these are cases of Complaint. However, the Central Registry registered them wrongly as Second Appeals for the reasons best known to them. Thus, these are being dealt with as Complaints and not as Second Appeals.
2. It would be seen here that the complainants, vide their RTI Applications dated NIL, sought information from the respondents on the issue pertaining to allotment of alternate Plots after demolishing their Jhuggi-Jhopris. Further, respondents vide their responses dated 13.06.2016, informed the complainants that the complainants are not eligible as per the rules. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid responses, FAs were filed by the complainant before the FAA, who could not take up the same for the reasons best known to him. Hence, complainants have filed their complaint dated NIL before the Commission for their adjudication.
3. On careful perusal of the contents of the case-file, it is revealed to the Commission that incompliance of Hon. Delhi High Court's order dated 25.11.2009, in WPC-2155/07 (titled Dewan Singh & Others vs. UOI & Ors.), a committee was constituted to consider the claim for grant of alternate plots to Jhuggi-Jhopris Dwellers. The committee has also considered this issue in the circumstances of cases and settled some eligibility criteria as mentioned on Page no. 5, 6 & 7 of the Committee Reported dated 22.05.2013. In the light of Committee's Report (supra), the complainants' cases were considered by respondents/DDA and the Complainants were found not eligible for allotment of alternate Plot. Accordingly, the complainant's were informed vide respondent's letters dated 13.06.2016 separately. Further, the Commission has also perused the Committee Report dated 22.05.2013 thoroughly.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that most important criterion among the other criteria mentioned under Section 18(1) (a) to (e) of the RTI Act 2005, appears to be that complainant must be given incomplete, misleading and false information. However, the other criteria seems to be, refusal of access, not given response, charging unreasonable fee and even refusal of accepting the application for information etc. etc. Page 3 of 5
5. It is further stated here that, as per Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act 2005, in the complaint cases, it is mandatory on the part of Hon'ble Commission to be satisfied first that there are reasonable grounds for getting the matter inquired from the O/o respondents before proceeding under Section 18 read with 20 of the RTI Act 2005 and the main satisfaction of the Hon'ble Commission seems to be the fulfillment of either criteria as mentioned under Section 18(1) (a) to (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
6. The Commission heard the submissions made by complainants at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the complainant in his RTI applications dated NIL, respondent's responses dated 13.06.2016, other material made available on record including Committee Report dated 22.05.2013 and also the contents of complaints.
7. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission feels, not satisfied, under section 18(2) of the RTI Act 2005, that there are reasonable grounds for getting the matter inquired simply because the complaint, under reference, miserably failed to qualify the criteria as mentioned under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act 2005. As such, the Commission is of the considered view that complainants' complaints devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed forthwith. Therefore, these are hereby dismissed.
The complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Secretary The Dy. Director (LM) NZ & CPIO DDA, O/o. Dy. Director (LM) NZ, LSC, LU Block, Pitampura, Delhi-110088 Shri Shravan Kumar S/o. Shri BhawanSwarup G-247, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Panna lal S/o. Shri Revti Prasad G-197, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Page 4 of 5 Shri Rajesh S/o. Shri Pannalal G-246, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Chirjee S/o. Shri BabuLal K-190, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Yadram S/o. Shri Man Singh K-21, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Satish S/o. Shri Nainsuk G-234, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Mahesh Kumar S/o. Shri Maniram F-1217, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Ved Prakash S/o. Shri Kalicharan G-167, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Smt. Shakuntala D/W/o. Shri Kailash G-181, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Ms. Shashi D/W/o. Shri Shankar Lal G-152, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Smt. Pushpa D/W/o- Shri Ashok G-233A, J J Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Shri Ram Swarup S/o. Bhawani Shankar G-165, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039 Page 5 of 5