Central Information Commission
Mrashok Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 17 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2014/001277
Appellant : Shri Ashok Malhotra
1310, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar
Delhi-110009
Public Authority : The PIO
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2015
Date of Decision : 17.03.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Amitava Acharjee, Learned Advocate
PIO : Shri N K Sharma, Dy. Director & PIO
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 25.07.2014, the Appellant sought information on the issue.
2. PIO failed to furnish any response to the appellant.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 12.09.2014, as the desired information was not provided.
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), Order is not on record.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 21.11.2014 are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
6. PIO, vide his response dated 11.03.2015, allegedly denied the required information to the appellant.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 25.07.2014, sought information from the respondents on the issues as contained therein. However, respondents failed to furnish any response to the appellant. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid PIO's inaction, appellant filed his FA on 12.09.2014 before FAA, who could not take up the same for its disposal for the reasons best known to him. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 11.03.2015, informed the appellant as under:
"It is to inform you that as per procedure prevalent in the office the call letter to appear before the competent authority was given a dispatch number on 14.07.2014, there is not provision in the office for sending speed post. It is done by the Central Office in INA, Vikas Sadan, DDA Office which takes few days. It is informed that there is no file order to post the letter on 19.07.2014 and therefore cannot be provided.
.......2 -2- Rest of the contents are not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005. However your representative appear before the Competent Authority and you choose not to appear their right of hearing was not furnished."
3. The Commission heard the submissions made by Shri Amitava Acharjee, Learned Advocate, on behalf of appellant, as well as respondents, at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 25.07.2014, respondent's response dated 11.03.2015, and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that there is no legal flaw in CPIO's response. Therefore, the CPIO's response dated 11.03.2015 is hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar The PIO DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023 Shri Ashok Malhotra 1310, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Delhi-110009