Central Information Commission
Kamla Rani vs Delhi Development Authority on 6 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2023/613828
Kamla Rani .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asst. Director (OSB), Delhi
Development Authority, 2nd
Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi - 110023 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01-05-2024
Date of Decision : 03-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 27-12-2022
First appeal filed on : 16-01-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16-03-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"Details of information required and whether desired information pertain to another party or property of which the applicant is not an owner or legal heir.
1. Copy of Letter No. S 4(83) 56/OSB/3274 Dated 10.05.2007 in respect of Subject Mutation/Transfer of rights in rights in respect of Plot No.2, Motia Page 1 of 4 Khan, Dump Scheme, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi issued by Asstt. Director (OSB).
2. Copy of Letter dated 09.02.2007 of Applicant submitted to DDA as request for Mutation along with all the supporting documents filed with Letter dated 09.02.2007.
3. Copy of Order of Mutation.
Desired information/Documents pertain to Owner of the Property."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27-12-2022 stating as under:
"The said information/document cannot be provided under Section 8 (1) ILLEGIBLE and Section 11 of RTI Act-2005 being personal and 3rd party information.
You are further requested, if you have any legal rights/ILLEGIBLE in this regards, please submit the documentary evidences such as file No. original lease deed and relationship proof to this effect, so that further action can be taken accordingly.
In view of the above the RTI application disposed of."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16-01-2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Ajay Tejpal along with Shri Kulvardhan Sharma authorized representative of Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Shri Laxman, Assistant Director & PIO present in person.
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Appellant is aggrieved with the fact that the desired information has not been provided to her till date. The representative of the Appellant submitted she is asking information related to her own property.Page 2 of 4
In response to Appellant's contentions, the PIO invited attention of the bench towards the reply of PIO vide its letter dated 27.12.2022 wherein they have advised the Appellant that "You are further requested, if you have any legal rights/ILLEGIBLE in this regards, please submit the documentary evidences such as file No. original lease deed and relationship proof to this effect, so that further action can be taken accordingly." But till date, the Appellant did not turn up in their office with her documents.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that there is no such office order of mutation as sought on point No. 3 of the RTI application.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant was non- receipt of information as per her RTI application.
The Commission, with respect to point No. 1 of the RTI application, observes that the Appellant in her second appeal has herself annexed a true copy of letter dated 10.05.2007 then there is no point of seeking same information under the RTI Act. Further, on point No. 3 of the RTI application, the Respondent has orally submitted during the hearing that no such office order of mutation is available in their records. On closer scrutiny, the document dated 10.05.2007, it reveals that it is a photocopy of the office copy from Respondent's office record.
With respect to point No. 2 of the RTI application, it is pertinent to note that Appellant is not entitled to seek copy of her own documents in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 26781 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 titled as The Central Information Commission v. B. Bharathi dated 17-09-2014, wherein, it was held as under:-
"24. In so far as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have Page 3 of 4 copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect."
Having observed as above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Deputy Director (OSB), Delhi Development Authority, A Block, 2nd floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 Smt. Kamla Rani Plot No. 49, On Road M 1 DLF City Phase II, Near Shahpur Village, Gurgaon - 122008 Haryana.Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)