Central Information Commission
Mr.Suresh Chandra Jain vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002239/9683
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002239
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain
B-17/211; Pharma Apartment
I.P extension,Delhi-92
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd 3/6 Siri Fort Institutional Area August Kranti Marg New Delhi-110049 RTI application filed on : 23/02/2010 ID 156 PIO replied : 20/03/2010 First appeal filed on : 07/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 24/04/2010 Second Appeal received on : 09/08/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 07/09/2010 Hearing Held on : 07/10/2010 Information Sought:
Seven queries had been sought seeking clarifications of an earlier reply received for an earlier RTI application.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) Information under two pages alongwith five pages annexures attached.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information not satisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Information has been provided by the PIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
1. The SPIO could not produce copy of the resolution-passed at the AGM of the society opting for individualization scheme . The financial powers are vested in AGM and not in the MJC. Copy, of the related features of Individualization scheme is enclosed as Annexure-4.
2. The SPIO could not produce copy of the resolution passed at the AGM of the society dividing the DCHFC loan liability equally on 300 flat owners irrespective of the fact that all the 228 loanee members have repaid their loan and 72 did not avail any loan from DCHFC and there are three types of flats having different costs and areas.
3. The SPIO could not produce the identified loan liability of the defaulting members, admitted and confirmed by the members and an undertaking by the members that they agree to pay the agreed amount (Refer Anriexure-4).
4. The SPIO could not produce Tripartite Agreement executed by the members, the society and DCHFC accepting the individualization scheme of DCHFC. (Refer Annexure-4).
5. The SPIO failed to produce the authority under which DCHFC was issuing NOC for conversion of Lease hold flats to free hold flats to DDA when there is no privity of contract between DCHFC and the members.
6. The PIO failed to produce the letters she claimed to have written to RCS fort taking action against the defaulting PECGHS as admitted by her in rep1y to question No.13 of I.D. No. 125.
7. The SPIO failed to provide the names of the persons appointed by DCHFC to work on M/C of PECGHS and check the correctness of the loan utilization certificate and certificate. issued by CA. Even after getting loan certificate, the DCHFC failed to check misappropriation, misuse, diversion and mismanagement of the loan installments paid by the members to the society.
8. The SPIO failed to produce any record, material or evidence to prove that it took action against the erring society under clauses 4, 5(1), 5(2), 12, 13 and 15 of the loan agreement and section 72 of DCS Act and Rules 1973.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain Respondent: Ms. Anita Agarwal (Sr. Manager) & Mr. R K Jain (AO).
The PIO has provided the information as per the available records. The appellant has certain grievances and believes that DCHFC has not acted as per the law. For this he will have to agitate at an appropriate forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 7 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)