Central Information Commission
Mr.Gulshan Kumar Gandhi vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 21 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001035
Appellant : Shri G.K. Gandhi
Public Authority : D.D.A.
(through : Shri D.K. Gupta, Deputy
Director(Housing)(LIG).
Date of Hearing : 21.06.2010
Date of Decision : 21.06.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 21.06.2010. Appellant present along with his counsel Shri B.K. Gandhi. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above.
2. The incontrovertible facts in this matter are as follows. The appellant had booked a LIG flat under NPRS-1979 vide Registration No. 5939, Priority No. 27713. The address given in the Registration Form was BE-40, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064. A LIG flat happened to be allotted to the appellant in 1994 but the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter (DAL herein after) was not sent at the address noted above and it is purported to have been sent at a different address i.e. 106-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, in 1994. Naturally, the appellant could not have deposited the requisite amount with DDA. Resultantly, the allotment was cancelled vide DDA's letter dated 1.11.1994. The appellant has been pursuing the matter with DDA for the restoration of flat since 1995 (ever since he got this information from the Income Tax Office) but to no avail.
3. It may also be apt to mention that the appellant had earlier filed two appeals before the Commission viz : Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01151/LS and No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00214/LS (G.K. Gandhi -Vs- DDA) and the same were disposed of by this Commission through a consolidated decision dated 21.10.2008. Paras 7 & 8 of the decision are extracted below :-
"7. In view of the above discussion, Shri Des Raj Arora, Deputy Director, DDA, is hereby directed to intimate the date and time to the Appellant by a formal letter for the inspection of the documents. Besides, he is also directed to furnish information to the Appellant as requested for in para 6 of his second Appeal bearing No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00214.
8. Before I part with the matter, I would like to bring on record that relevant file was traced by DDA way back in September, 2007 as claimed by the counsel of the Appellant and not disputed by the representative of DDA. Ever since the file was traced, the concerned officer of DDA failed to furnish relevant information to the appellant on the basis of record available with him. This is reflective of callousness and lack of sensitivity on the part of DDA which is not approved of. A copy of this order may be sent to Vice Chairman, DDA, for causing an administrative inquiry into the matter and determine responsibility for appropriate disciplinary action against the erring official(s). "
4. During the hearing, Adv. Gandhi submits that pursuant to the Commission's decision, the appellant took inspection of the relevant records and also obtained certified copies of the relevant records. His principal grievance, regarding non-restoration of the flat, however, persists, causing him a serious financial detriment and mental agony. In this context, vide fresh RTI application bearing ID No. 1269 dated 19.3.2009, the appellant had requested for the following information :-
"1. On what basis the flat was cancelled ?
2. Why the Department has not issued Demand-cum-Allotment Letter at the original price so far under wrong address policy despite regular follow since 1995 and compelled the applicant to move to the Hon'ble court for readdressal of the grievances ?"
5. This was responded to by Deputy Director(LIG)H vide letter dated 12.05.2009. Paras 1 & 2 of the said letter are extracted below :-
"1. The LIG Flat No. 75, 1st Floor, Pkt. AI, Sector-16, Rohini was allotted to you on Cash Down Basis in the draw held on 14/12/93 was cancelled due to non-payment as per terms and conditions of the Demand Letter dated 7/3/94 - 15/3/94.
2. The case for examination of allotment of another flat under Wrong Address Policy is under process. In this connection, vide this office letter of even no. 2174 dt. 6/5/09 (copy enclosed), you have already been advised to attend this office for verification of genuineness on coming working Monday/Thursday between 2.30 P.M. to 5.30 P.M. along with documents as mentioned in the above said letter."
6. During the hearing, Adv. Gandhi would submit that DDA has willfully provided incorrect, incomplete and misleading information in as much as DDA's claim that the allotment was cancelled due to non-payment is totally incorrect and contrary to the facts in as much as DAL was never sent to the appellant's address given in the Registration Form and, therefore, the question of payment by the appellant does not arise. Significantly, he also mentions that the appellant had never requested for change of address which the DDA officials have confirmed in their interim reply. Therefore, the purported dispatch of DAL on a different address i.e. 106-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, is really intriguing and actuated by malafide intentions.
7. Adv. Gandhi also submits that DDA has a policy of allotment of flats under 'Wrong Address Policy'. The appellant has been pursuing this matter with DDA since 1995 but no relief has been given to him under this policy for reasons best known to DDA officials.
8. On the other hand, Shri Gupta would submit that the matter is sub-judice and is pending in the District Consumer Forum, Delhi(South) and, therefore, no relief is due to the appellant. To this, Adv. Gandhi would respond that pendency of the matter in the Consumer Forum is not an estoppal on his seeking relief under the RTI Act.
DECISION
9. I have heard the parties and also perused the relevant records produced by them. I also carefully perused this Commission's earlier decision referred to above. It is indisputable that the address given by the appellant in the Registration Form is BE-40, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064. However, as per DDA records, DAL was dispatched on a different address i.e. 106-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Therefore, the question of payment by the appellant did not arise. The appellant has lost the flat which is a valuable commodity in a metropolitan city like Delhi which has an ever increasing hunger for dwelling units. I also find merit in Adv. Gandhi's submission that the CPIO has given incorrect and misleading information to the appellant. It, therefore, appears to me that by supply of misleading and incorrect information, the appellant has suffered detriment as defined u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. In view of this, the following order is passed :-
(i) CPIO is hereby directed to provide categorical and transparent response to the appellant on the two queries extracted herein above as per DDA records, in 04 weeks time;
(ii) Notice may be issued to Secretary, DDA, to show cause why compensation of Rs. 2 lacs(two lacs) should not be awarded to the appellant under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act; and
(iii) Notice may also be issued to Shri D.K. Gupta, Deputy Director(Housing)LIG under section 20(1) of the RTI Act to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for supplying misleading and incorrect information to the appellant.
10. The notice is returnable in 06 weeks time. The matter will come up for hearing on 27.08.2010 at 1130 hrs. Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( D.C. Singh ) Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, INA, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-110023.
2. Shri D.K. Gupta, Deputy Director(LIG-H) & CPIO, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023.
3. Shri Gulshan Kumar Gandhi, BE-40, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064.