Central Information Commission
Sharvan Kumar Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 7 May, 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/2024/100215 &
CIC/DDATY/C/2024/102615
Sharvan Kumar Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Chief Vigilance Officer,
Delhi Development Authority,
B - Block, 7th Floor, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi - 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025
Date of Decision : 06.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are clubbed together as
the Appellant/Complainant is common and subject-matter is similar in
nature and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/DDATY/A/2024/100215
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 07.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.01.2024
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 07.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"I had made an application for the following reason (copy of application dated 19.10.2023 is enclosed) but no satisfactory action has been taken on my application so far.
Please provide the following information with respect to same:-
1. The excess are of D.D.A. land is 46.02 Square Meter has been illegally encroached by the Videocon Tower. The cost of excess area of D.D.A. land works out as Rs.6.60 Crore. The construction of Videocon Tower was done under the supervision of Dinesh Kumar Gupta, authorised signatory of D.D.A. Supplementary Lease Deed dated 22.10.1997. The sanctioned Building Plans of Videocon Tower were received by Dinesh Kumar Gupta as indicated in the letter No. F-13(66)95/Bldg/401 dated 05.02.1998 (copy enclosed) 2 There are four number of minarets (Burji) at the four corner of the terrace of Videocon Tower. The height has been shown in the occupancy certificate as 6.30 meter whereas the actual height of the minarets is 10.60 meter at the site. Please provide the information when the height of minarets will be made as 6.30 mtr. which is as per the sanctioned plans of the Videocon Tower.
3. Provide the information when counterfeit (fake and bogus) occupancy certificate will be revoked?
4. Provide the information when perpetual lease deed dated 05.05.1995 and supplementary lease deed dated 22.10.1997 will be cancelled; in view of above stated illegality i.e. excess area covered by Videocon Tower and increased height of four number minarets (burji).
5. The fake and bogus occupancy certificate was issued by Vivek Kumar Junior Engineer, S.K. Leekha Assistant Engineer, A.K. Manna Deputy Director (C and 1) Building and Kuldeep Raj Director Building on the submission of counterfeit completion plans by Dinesh Kumar Gupta and acceptance of the same by above named officers of Building Department of Delhi Development Authority. The malafide intention of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and above named officials of Building Department mandate for taking punitive action as per law.Page 2 of 8
6. This is a case of causing wrongful gain of Rs.6.60 Crore to Dinesh Kumar Gupta and wrongful loss of Rs.6.60 Crore to Delhi Development Authority (Government).
7. The loss of Rs.6.60 Crore has been done to defraud the Delhi Development Authority by Dinesh Kumar Gupta and above named officials of Delhi Development Authority.
8. By When Rs 6.60 Crore will be recovered from Dinesh Kumar Gupta and above named officials of Bldg."
2. The PIO/AVO(Bldg), DDA transferred the RTI application to the Dy. Director (Bldg.) (C&I), DDA on 04.12.2023 stating as under:
"The undersigned has received the above RTI application dated 07.11.2023 from Sh. Sharvan Kumar Sharma vide this office dairy No. 465 dated 20.11.2023.
Since, the issue involved is closely related to Building Department as such the aforesaid RTI application is hereby transferred to Dy. Director(Bldg.)/CPIO/PIO, under Sub-Section-3 of Section-6 of RTI Act, 2005 for further necessary action. You are requested to take immediate action into the matter and supply the information directly to the applicant.
2. Also, it is intimated that earlier a complaint dated 19.10.2023 made by Sh. Sharvan Kumar Sharma was received in the Vigilance Branch of DDA, vide diary No. 436 dated 31.10.2023 which is enclosed herewith, for examining the contents of the case and furnish ATR in the matter to the Vigilance Deptt."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
CIC/DDATY/C/2024/102615 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 04.12.2023, 08.01.2024 First appeal filed on : 07.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.01.2024 Page 3 of 8 Information sought:
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 03-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"I had made an application for the following reason (copy of application dated 19.10.2023 is enclosed) but no satisfactory action has been taken on my application so far.
Please provide the following information with respect to same:-
1. The excess are of D.D.A. land is 46.02 Square Meter has been illegally encroached by the Videocon Tower. The cost of excess area of D.D.A. land works out as Rs.6.60 Crore. The construction of Videocon Tower was done under the supervision of Dinesh Kumar Gupta, authorised signatory of D.D.A. Supplementary Lease Deed dated 22.10.1997. The sanctioned Building Plans of Videocon Tower were received by Dinesh Kumar Gupta as indicated in the letter No. F-13(66)95/Bldg/401 dated 05.02.1998 (copy enclosed) 2 There are four number of minarets (Burji) at the four corner of the terrace of Videocon Tower. The height has been shown in the occupancy certificate as 6.30 meter whereas the actual height of the minarets is 10.60 meter at the site. Please provide the information when the height of minarets will be made as 6.30 mtr. which is as per the sanctioned plans of the Videocon Tower.
3. Provide the information when counterfeit (fake and bogus) occupancy certificate will be revoked?
4. Provide the information when perpetual lease deed dated 05.05.1995 and supplementary lease deed dated 22.10.1997 will be cancelled; in view of above stated illegality i.e. excess area covered by Videocon Tower and increased height of four number minarets (burji).
5. The fake and bogus occupancy certificate was issued by Vivek Kumar Junior Engineer, S.K. Leekha Assistant Engineer, A.K. Manna Deputy Director (C and 1) Building and Kuldeep Raj Director Building on the submission of counterfeit completion plans by Dinesh Kumar Gupta and acceptance of the same by above named officers of Building Department of Delhi Development Authority. The malafide intention of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and above named officials of Building Department mandate for taking punitive action as per law.Page 4 of 8
6. This is a case of causing wrongful gain of Rs.6.60 Crore to Dinesh Kumar Gupta and wrongful loss of Rs.6.60 Crore to Delhi Development Authority (Government).
7. The loss of Rs.6.60 Crore has been done to defraud the Delhi Development Authority by Dinesh Kumar Gupta and above named officials of Delhi Development Authority.
8. By When Rs 6.60 Crore will be recovered from Dinesh Kumar Gupta and above named officials of Bldg."
5. The PIO/AVO(Bldg), DDA transferred the RTI application to the Dy. Director (Bldg.) (C&I), DDA on 04.12.2023 stating as under:
"The undersigned has received the above RTI application dated 07.11.2023 from Sh. Sharvan Kumar Sharma vide this office dairy No. 465 dated 20.11.2023.
Since, the issue involved is closely related to Building Department as such the aforesaid RTI application is hereby transferred to Dy. Director(Bldg.)/CPIO/PIO, under Sub-Section-3 of Section-6 of RTI Act, 2005 for further necessary action. You are requested to take immediate action into the matter and supply the information directly to the applicant.
2. Also, it is intimated that earlier a complaint dated 19.10.2023 made by Sh. Sharvan Kumar Sharma was received in the Vigilance Branch of DDA, vide diary No. 436 dated 31.10.2023 which is enclosed herewith, for examining the contents of the case and furnish ATR in the matter to the Vigilance Deptt."
6. The PIO/AVO(Bldg), DDA transferred the RTI application to the Dy. Director (Bldg.) (C&I), DDA on 08.01.2024 stating as under:
"With reference to RTI application, it is to inform that in the similar matter reply of the various RTI applications & Appeals had already been provided by this office on 26.09.2022, 08.09.2022, 13.05.2022, 16.07.2021, 24.06.2021, 25.06.2021 etc. Further, information asked in applications had already been provided by this office through Speaking order in the matter of Sharvan Kumar Sharma Vs DDA through VC vide WP(C) 674/2020 in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Copy of the Speaking order dated 31.12.2021 is attached herewith for reference. Further as per RTI Act "only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under Page 5 of 8 the control of the Public Authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create the information or to interpret the information to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical question."
Accordingly, your RTI is disposed off."
7. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Amit Gupta, Junior Engineer and CPIO present in person.
9. The Respondent, while defending their case inter-alia submitted that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Complainant/Appellant as per his RTI application vide letter dated 08.01.2024.
Decision:
10. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant/Appellant in the instant Complaint/Appeal was non-receipt of desired information from the PIO. The Respondent contended that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Complainant/Appellant vide letter dated 08.01.2024.
11. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply given at the relevant point of time and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
12. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the PIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Page 6 of 8 Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
13. No mala fide was observed on the part of the present PIO.
14. The Commission is of the view that the Respondent should inform the current status in the matter to the Complainant/Appellant. The Respondent is directed to inform in writing to the Complainant/Appellant current status of the case, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
15. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint 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 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, O/o the Chief Vigilance Officer, Delhi Development Authority, B - Block, 7th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)