Central Information Commission
Vinay Rani Garg vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/C/2024/621188
Vinay Rani Garg ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asst. Director-(EHS)-Housing, Delhi
Development Authority, D-Block,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023.
2. Nodal Public Information Officer,
Deputy Director & Nodal Officer-RTI,
Delhi Development Authority, RTI
Implementation & Co-ordination Branch,
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
INA Colony, New Delhi-110023. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025
Date of Decision : 18.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.03.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.05.2024
Information sought:
Page 1 of 61. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"SUB: - Information sought under RTI Act 2005 regarding conversion of leasehold to freehold flat from DDA.
Respected Sir/Madam I Vinay Rani D/O Late Sh. R. L. Garg, Residence of Flat No. 482, Ground floor, EWS House, Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi allotted in 1999. My File Number is REC/H/22/18289 & DDA File Number J209(30)1996/DP/NP.
I applied for leasehold to freehold convenience deed in office of DDA VIKAS SADAN Dated 19/12/2022 it has been more than one year passed. I have not any information till date whether it is converted from lease hold to free hold. So please give me the current status of that application, if free hold is not done then kindly inform me why it is not converted."
2. Having not received any response from PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA order is Not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Meena, PIO-cum-Assistant Director and Shri Naveen Kumar, SSA, attended the hearing in person.
5. The Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. She added that she applied for leasehold to freehold convenience deed in office of DDA in the year 2022 and it has been more than three years and till date the Respondent has neither provided any information nor they are providing any current status of that application.
Page 2 of 66. The Respondent submitted that instead of transferring the RTI Application to their office, the then PIO Shri Vikas Gaurav, Assistant Director (now posted in PM-UDAY branch), has provided a reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Complainant on 04.04.2024 through online mode stating as under:
"RTI is not a grievance redressal portal"
7. Upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, it came to notice that the property file related to the instant case is missing and the same is not traceable. He apprised the Bench of the fact that in the case where property files are not traceable in DDA, the case must be processed for reconstruction of property file in terms of circular No. F/1/0001/2020/CORD/-Housing (Coordn.)-Part(1)/400 dated 01.08.2023. He added that the process of reconstruction of file is under process which includes filing of FIR, taking non traceable report form all he branches of DDA, taking payment confirmation report from Accounts Department of DDA, allotment verification report from system department of DDA, carrying out of genuineness verification (GV) of the applicant in which applicant is called before Assistant Director and original papers of the allottee are seen by AD and make note of the said original documents in the file etc. After completion of all the formalities for reconstruction of file, the same is submitted before Director (Housing)-II for approval. He further assured the Bench that as soon as the above said process is completed, the conversion application shall be processed for execution of Conveyance Deed.
8. A written submission has been received from Shri Sanjay Kumar Meena, PIO-cum-Assistant Director, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is with reference to Notice of Hearing w.r.t File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2024/621188 dated 09.10.2025 in the case of Sh. Vinay Rani Garg fixed for hearing on 13/11/2025 at 11:15 AM at Room No. 313, 3rd Floor, CIC. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that, Sh. Vinay Rani Garg, applicant had sought information regarding status of conversion from lease hold to free hold of the flat no. 482, GF, Pul Pehladpur vide online RTI application No. DDATY/R/E/24/00625 dated 20.02.2024. In response, the then CPIO of EHS Page 3 of 6 housing branch replied that "RTI is not a grievance redressal portal." Instead of transfer the RTI application to this branch.
In the case where property files is not traceable in DDA. The matter is processed for reconstruction of property file in terms of circular no. F/1/0001/2020/CORD/-Housing (Coordn.)-Part(1)/400 dated 01.08.2023. The process of reconstruction of file is under process which includes filing of FIR, taking non traceable report form all he branches of DDA, taking payment confirmation report form Accounts Department of DDA, allotment verification report from system department of DDA, carrying out of genuineness verification (GV) of the applicant in which applicant is called before Assistant Director and original papers of the allottee are seen by AD and make note of the said original documents in the file etc. After complication of all the codal formalities for reconstruction of file, the same is submitted before Director (Housing)-II for approval.
It is further stated that as soon as the above said process is completed, the conversion application shall be processed for execution of Conveyance Deed. Since the RIT application was rejected by the predecessor, the information could not be provided to the applicant in time. The same is deeply regretted. This is issued with the approval of FAA."
Decision
9. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily Page 4 of 6 and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner
10. alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
11. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is observed that the reply provided by the then PIO Shri Vikas Gaurav, Assistant Director (now posted in PM-UDAY branch), on 04.04.2024 was evasive and mala fide is apparent. Therefore, the Commission deems it fit to get the matter inquired through a senior officer of the Respondent Public Authority. Accordingly, Commission assigns this work to Principal Commissioner, Personnel Department of DDA to inquire the matter and initiate suitable action against the erring PIO. The present PIO to place a copy of this order before the Pr. Commissioner, Personnel Department.
12. Notwithstanding the above, the present PIO Shri Sanjay Kumar Meena, PIO-cum-Assistant Director, has assured the bench that he will provide a revised reply to the Complainant after re-construction of the missing file, no mala fide on the part of the present PIO is established, and no cause of action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the present PIO is advised to fulfil his commitment made during the hearing.
The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Deputy Director (EHS) Housing, Delhi Development Authority, D-Block, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi- 110023 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)