Central Information Commission
Akhilesh Kumar Sharma vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 25 November, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSIDC/A/2018/155583
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
The PIO, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
DELHI STATE INDUSTRICAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD
UDYOG SADAN PLOT NO 419,F I E PATPARGANJ
DELHI 110092 (HOUSING DIVISION)
Date of Hearing : 24.11.2020
Date of Decision : 25.11.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.02.2018
PIO replied on : 09.03.2018
First Appeal filed on : 28.03.2018
First Appellate Order on : 25.04.2018
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 10.09.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 24.02.2018 seeking information on following points which are not comprehensible:
1. Civil request this type that file number 10751 to reference dated 09/01/2018 to request letter was Send yet his answer did not get up.
2. Please the request letter of satisfaction positive answer soberly please give.
The Divisional Manager - Housing, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 provided a response to the Appellant, the contents of which are not illegible.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2018.The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2018 observed that "the 1st Appellate Authority does not have power to issue orders for allotment".
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 2Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that allotment of property to him was incorrectly revoked on the grounds that his credentials could not be verified. He specifically pointed out that the authorities incorrectly concluded that he was a relative of the owners of M/s Santoshi Industries whereas the factual position was that he was an employee of the aforesaid enterprise. Thus, he prayed that his grievance pertaining to allotment of flat/ unit/ property be redressed by the Commission appropriately.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Vikas Gupta, Divisional Manager through audio conference. He referred to the Field Verification Report as per which the Appellant was not found eligible for allotment of flat as per Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme. Furthermore, the Appellant did not claim the refund of the money deposited by him at the time of application. Nonetheless, during the hearing, the Respondent stated that a new scheme will soon be launched for allotment of the residual houses/ flats which could not be allotted earlier and that the Appellant could make a fresh application for the same which will be examined as per guidelines.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his personal grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2