Central Information Commission
Sudhesh Anand vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/103659
Sudhesh Anand .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asst. Directoer (LAB Rohini),
Delhi Development Authority,
C-1, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi - 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025
Date of Decision : 30.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 12.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"Sub: Inspection of File of Plot No. 113, Block-A, Pkt-1, Sector-37, Rohini, Delhi and Supply of Certified copies of complete File Pertaining to the said allotted Plot.Page 1 of 6
Ref.: File No. 16(26402) 2012/RHN Respected Sir.
This is to inform you that the i am the original allottee of above mention plot.
I received a Allotment-cum-Demand letter dated 09.02.2018 in respect of above said plot Land Area measuring 60 Sq. Mtr. under MIG category vide Application No. 33523 Priority No. 13240. Under Rohini Residential Scheme 1981.
I have paid the premium well in time of said plot Rs. 1625202/- in three installment as Directed by Allotment cum Demand letter dated 09.02.2018 and informed on 06.04.2018. And submitted required documents along with original F.D.R. vide FDR No. 25544 dated 25.04.1981. FDR for Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) issued by DDA, duly discharge.
I hereby request to you kindly supply me sought of information required i.e. as under:-
1 Inspection of plot No. 113 Pkt & Block A-1, Sector-37, measuring 60 Sq. Mtr. Rohini, Delhi
2. Supply of Certified copies of the entire file i.e. noting portion as well as correspondence portion of the file No, as mention in reference."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.09.2023 stating as under:
"1. Pertain to Survey Deptt. of DDA.
2. The certified copies of the entire file i.e. noting portion as well as correspondence portion cannot be provided as the main property file bearing No.F16126402)2012/LAB(Rohini) is not readily traced out. As and when the file traced out the requisite documents may be provided to you under RTI Act-2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.10.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
Page 2 of 64. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Sudhesh Anand along with her representative Shri Deepak Kohli, attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Vimal Kishore Lakra, PIO-cum-AD and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Junior Secretariat Assistant, attended the hearing in person.
5. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information till date. She added that she has paid the premiums well in time for the said plot as and when demanded through Allotment cum Demand letter and also submitted required documents along with original F.D.R. with the Respondent Public Authority but till date possession of the said plot has not been handed over by the Respondent.
6. The Respondent submitted that the main property file is not traceable, as per available record and no scanned file data is available in the records. He added that upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, their office has sent a letter to Police Station Kotla Mubrakpur on 19.06.2025 requesting them to lodge FIR in the matter of missing files. He added that their office has some records of the concerned property in the 'Bhoomi' records such as property number, allotment, size, pocket, block, description of the property and Applicant's address and volunteered to provide the CTC of the available data to the Appellant.
7. A written submission has been received from Shri Vimal Kishore Lakra, PIO-cum-AD, vide letter dated 18.06.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is in reference to your notice dated 05.06.2025 regarding the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Sudesh Anand. W/o Late Shri G. P. Anand, R/o D-38. Sector-14. Tulsi Apartment. Rohini. Delhi-110085. under the Right to Information Act. 2005.Page 3 of 6
The applicant had sought certified copies of the entire file (noting and correspondence portions) related to property file No. F.16(26402)2012/LAB(Rohini) via RTI application dated 20.07.2023.
1. Facts of the Case Upon receipt of the RTI application, efforts were made to locate the relevant file through internal correspondence and records rooms search. However, the said file was not readily traceable at the time of responding. and the same was conveyed to the applicant through CPIO reply dated 12.09.2023 Subsequent Action Taken & Present Status After receipt of the notice from the Hon'ble Commission, further intensive efforts were made to trace the missing file. The following steps have been undertaken:
(1) A physical search was conducted in the concerned record rooms and sections.
(ii) Communications were issued to the concerned departments and officers who may have dealt with the file.
(iii) Efforts are ongoing to re-construct or retrieve the file, if not found in original.
3. Assurance to the Hon'ble Commission The DDA remains committed to transparency and the objectives of the RTI Act. 2005. The applicant shall be provided the certified copies of the file, if and when it is recovered or reconstructed and will process further actions i.e. Handing over possession letter to the applicant We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused to the applicant and respectfully request the Hon'ble Commission to take note of the genuine efforts being made to trace the file and allow reasonable time for the same."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the initial reply provided by the then CPIO vide letter dated 12.09.2023 simply says that the file is not traceable and express it publicly which is unacceptable. Under the RTI Act, 2005, a public authority is required to properly maintain the records in a manner that allows for efficient retrieval of data. A custodian of record in a government office can't simply claim that a file is not traceable without taking any reasonable steps either to locate it or to fix responsibility on the erring official from whose possession the file went missing. In the instant case, apparently neither an inquiry was Page 4 of 6 instituted in the incident of file going missing nor a FIR was lodged except writing a letter that too on receipt of hearing notice from the Commission.
9. During the hearing, it has transpired from the submission of the Respondent that their office has some records of the concerned property in the Bhoomi records such as property number, allotment, size, pocket, block, description of the property and Applicant's address and volunteered to provide the CTC of the available data to the Appellant. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to provide the available records of the concerned property to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
10. In today's hearing there is another case bearing Second Appeal file No. CIC/DDATY/A/2024/102754, which is also of exactly the same nature where file has gone missing and the Respondents unabashedly states so publicly and has not taken any action to either trace the file or cause an inquiry till date of receiving the hearing notice form the Commission.
Upon receipt of CIC hearing notice, the Respondent has filed a request in the Police Station to lodge a FIR for the missing file i.e. after two years of filing of the RTI Application which shows that no prompt action was taken by the Public Authority and this kind of lackadaisical approach is awful. It is noted that these files pertain to high value land allotment, handing over possession, transactions, other similar issues. It appears to be an accepted practice in Respondent Public authority where not only do the files go missing but are also declared publicly in reply to RTI Applications. It speaks volumes about the organisation. The Commission would also like to point out that the Appellant in the instant case is an octogenarian whose being made to run from pillar to post to get the possession of the plot despite having paid the required premium and submitted requisite documents.
11. This scenario is outrageous and calls for an immediate inquiry and therefore, in order to achieve the Preamble and Object of the RTI Act and by virtue of the powers of the Commission envisaged under Section 19 (8) (a) read with Section 19 (8) (c) of the RTI Act, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the DDA is directed to investigate this matter by following due process of principles of natural justice and fix accountability on the Page 5 of 6 erring official/officials from whose possession the relevant file got misplaced and take suitable and necessary action as per the law. He is also directed to provide broad outcome of the averred inquiry to the Appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is 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:
Chief Vigilance Officer Delhi Development Authority, B- Block, 7th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023 The FAA, Delhi Development Authority, Dy. Director (LAB) RO, Room No.-310, C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, DDA, INA, New Delhi110023 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)