Central Information Commission
V P Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 August, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/C/2017/175741
CIC/DDATY/C/2017/175743
CIC/DDATY/C/2017/175745
Sh. V.P. Gupta, ....अप◌ीलकत◌ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO/Assistant Director-(Industrial),
Delhi Development Authority (Land .... नतवादीगण/Respondent
Sales Branch-Industrial, A-Block,
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,
NewDelhi-110023
2. PIO/Deputy C.A.O.-(L.C.)-I,
Delhi Development Authority,
C-Block, Vikas Sadan,
INA Colony,
NewDelhi-110023.
Through:- Sh. Raman Kumar-
CPIO/AD: 9818403339; Sh. A K Jain -
Dy. Chief Accounts officer:
9891053229
Date of Hearing : 27.12.2018
Date of Decision : 31.12.2018
Information Commissioner : Shri Bimal Julka
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
175741 05.04.2017 01.06.2017 28.06.2017 - -
175743 12.04.2017 01.06.2017 28.06.2017 - -
175745 17.04.2017 06.06.2017 28.06.2017 - -
Since the above appeals arise between the same parties, hence they are
clubbed for the purpose of adjudication
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/DDATY/C/2017/175741 Vide RTI application dated 05.04.2017, the Complainant sought certified photocopies of notings of File No. F.6A/68/1084/LSBCI pertaining to Plot No. C-28, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.
PIO/Astt. Director (Indl.) vide letter dated 01.06.2017 stated as follows:-
"In this connection, Appellant is requested to deposit amount of Rs. 240/- (Rs. Two hundred forty only) towards photostat charges of 120 Nos. pages @ 2/- per copy at the DDA Cash Counter „D Block, VikasSadan, New Delhi and to submit the copy of deposited challan so that the demanded can be provided under the provisions of RTIAct-2005".
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant has reiterated facts of his case, adding that despite deposit of the money, no information was furnished to him. Respondent states that file was under submission before higher authorities and having joined the post in Nov 2017, by oversight and under a misunderstanding, reply to the RTI application was missed due to sheer inadvertence. He tendered unconditional apology for the lacuna on his part.
On 13.06.2017 the requisite fee had been deposited by the Applicant. However, no information had been provided and Respondent expressed his apology for the same. The Respondent added that he is carrying the complete file today relating to the information about conversion charges, as sought by the Applicant, which is being provided during the course of hearing. Written submissions dated 27.12.2018 submitted by the Respondent has been taken on record whereby the CPIO has submitted the aforementioned facts alongwith supporting documents.
Decision It is noted from the facts as discussed above, the information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 is being provided to the Appellant during the course of hearing. Respondent has explained that the delay caused in furnishing of the information was due to oversight and inadvertence on his part. The Commission is cautioned to be careful in future in maintaining the timeline strictly, while handling RTI queries. No further action is required in this case.
CIC/DDATY/C/2017/175743 Vide RTI application dated 12.04.2017, the Complainant sought copy of Rule and Regulation regarding conversion of Industrial Plot from lease pertaining to Property No. C-28, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.
PIO/Astt. Director (Indl.) vide letter dated 01.06.2017 stated as follows:-
"In this connection, it is to inform you to purchase the brochure on conversion of industrial properties from leasehold to freehold on payment from the Cash Counter D-Block, Vikas Sadan on any working day".
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the Complainant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, the Complainant filed a complaint before this Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present and the Complainant stated that the brochure indicated by the Respondent in his reply had been obtained by him, but his query still remained unanswered. The Complainant once again prayed that the Rules and Regulations and policy with respect to the imposition of penalty on his property may be made known to him.
Decision Keeping in view the specific nature of query of the Complainant, which has not been addressed by the response so far provided by the Respondent, the Commission converts the instant Complaint into an Appeal. The Commission hereby directs the Respondent-PIO is directed to provide a Revised Reply answering the specific query of the Applicant, by furnishing the relevant Rules and Regulations regarding conversion of Industrial plot from leasehold to freehold. This Revised reply shall be provided to the Applicant within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
CIC/DDATY/C/2017/175745 Vide RTI application dated 17.04.2017, the Complainant sought information regarding F.6A/68/1084/LSBCI pertaining to Plot No. C-28, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi about total update dues for conversion into freehold, along with calculation sheet. In this regard, he sought following information:-
a) Amount towards conversion charges
b) Interest
c) Any other due
d) Calculation sheet PIO/Asstt. Director(Indl.) vide letter dated 01.06.2017 transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to the Dy. C.A.O. (L.C.)-I, Delhi Development Authority.
Dy. CAO(LC)-I/PIO vide letter dated 06.06.2017 for assistance in section (4) & (5) to AO (Industrial), Vikas Sadan, DDA, New Delhi.
Dissatisfied information received from PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for the hearing. During the course of hearing, the Respondent states that vide response dated 09.06.2017 Applicant had been informed about rejection of his Conversion application due to non-payment of the Composition fee. The Respondent has submitted a written note dated 27.12.2018, marked to the Applicant too, explaining the entire trail of communication exchanged with the Applicant informing him about the rejection of his conversion application, cause thereof and remedial process. However, the Applicant still emphasized during the hearing that he wants to know the one-
time upto-date payment required to be made by him.
Decision It is evident from perusal of records that information as sought by the Applicant through his RTI Application, has been duly responded. The Respondent has explained the cause of rejection of the Conversion Application to the Applicant. In so far as the Applicant's plea seeking the one-time payment to be made by him, it is not a query which forms part of the RTI Application. The Applicant is aggrieved by cancellation of his Conversion Application and despite demand lettersfromtheRespondentindicatingasumofRs.55,47,604/-,he is still aggrieved. This query of the Applicant is therefore, actually in the nature of a grievance, which cannot be adjudicated by this Commission. Information as sought by the Applicant vide his RTI application, and as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 have been duly provided. Therefore, no cause of action subsists to be adjudicated by this Commission under the RTI Act, 2005. The Applicant is free to seek redressal of his grievance from the appropriate grievance redressal authority.
The appeals are thus disposed of with the above directions.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Ram Parkash Grover
Dy. Registrar
011-26180514 /
ADJUNCT ORDER:
Date of Hearing: 13.08.2020
Note: Aggrieved due to non-receipt of any information from the Public Authority despite orders of the Commission, the Appellant filed an application for non-compliance vide letter dated 03.01.2019. The Respondent vide letter dated 26.02.2018 provided a response in compliance to the Commission's order. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant vide letter dated 14.03.2019 stated that incomplete information was provided to him as the original policy as well as various notifications and circulars since the scheme was started was not provided.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant:Sh. V.P. Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. Vineet Rohilla, AD/ LSB (I) / PAO and Mr. Arpit Goel, ASO/ LSB (I);
The Appellant referred to the order of the Commission dated 31.12.2018 and submitted that the same was not complied with to his satisfaction, till date. Explaining that the Respondent only provided him the copy of the modified scheme of 2014 pertaining to the conversion from leasehold into freehold of an industrial plot and a circular dated 17.09.2014, the Appellant submitted that he desired a copy of the original scheme of conversion together with all rules and regulations and amendments relating to the same. In its reply, the Respondent stated that in compliance with the Commission's decision they had provided the modified scheme of 2014 pertaining to the conversion from leasehold into freehold of industrial plot which answered the queries of the Appellant which was also uploaded on their website. The Appellant vehemently contested the submission of the Respondent and stated that the original scheme could not be traced on the website where more than 250 pages of documents could be accessed after typing the relevant keywords but it did not provide him an easy access to the information. The Appellant also stated that essentially the information was required by him to ensure redressal of his personal grievance pertaining to a court case relating to conversion of property where the Respondent Public Authority was also a party. Hence necessary clarifications would assist him in redressal of his personal grievance. On being queried by the Commission regarding disclosure of the old scheme and its periodic modifications on the website of the Public Authority, the Respondent feigned ignorance but assured to upload the same on their website as also provide a copy of the old scheme to the Appellant, if so directed by the Commission.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26.02.2018 wherein while enclosing the response provided by the PIO/ DDA in compliance to the Commission's order, it was stated that since the file in question was mixed with another file, hence the complainant was replied late. As regards no reply provided by the FAA, it was stated that the First Appeal dated 28.06.2017 was marked to the DD (I)/ AD (I)/ Sh Udai Bhan Shokeen, DA (I) but there was no signature of the then DD (I), FAA on the first appeal but the CPIO made initial on it and marked it to DA.
The Commission was also in receipt of another written submission from the Appellant dated 13.08.2020 wherein it was inter alia prayed to supply him the original scheme of conversion of industrial plot from Lease Hold to Free Hold from the beginning till date alongwith changes/ modifications and all rules and regulations / amendments relating to the conversion.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Respondent is directed to provide a copy of the old scheme pertaining to conversion of an industrial plot from leasehold into freehold as also disclose the same on their website together with the periodic modifications/ updations made in the larger public interest within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, as agreed.
It is however clarified that the purpose and remit of the RTI Act, 2005 is only restricted to providing the information held and available on the record of the Public Authority and cannot be extended to resolve the personal grievance of the information seeker for which he is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date:13.08.2020