Central Information Commission
Shri Baldev Raj Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) on 3 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00489 dated 7-4-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj Sharma
Respondent: Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
FACTS
By an application of 31.10.2006 Shri Baldev Raj Sharma of Guru Teg Bhadur Enclave, Delhi applied to the OSD (RL) DDA seeking the following information:
"At the time of Registration in 1981, DDA committed to allot Plots within five years. After 26 years, I am still awaiting for the same.
Please tell us
1. What efforts have been made by DDA to meet its own commitment,
2. what efforts are being made to avail to avoid further delay,
3. or DDA is following the delaying tactics,
4. please give the final status by which the plot will be given to me.' To this he received a response on 17.11.2006 from PIO Shri BS Jaglan, OSD (RL), DDA as follows:-
"Earlier your name was considered for allotment of plot against registration application No. 130949 in the various draws held prior to 1989 but unfortunately, you were not decaled successful.
In the year 1989 category wise priority list for allotment of plot to remaining registrants was drawn. Accordingly in the said list you have been assigned priority No. 13184 for allotment of plot in the category of MIG.
In the last draw held on 21.9.2005, the priority numbers upto 9292 have been covered. Thus, it is expected that you will get the allotment in the near future provided sufficient land and infrastructural services are made available by the concerned agencies i.e. Delhi Admn. And MCD etc. As per the policy, the allotment is made strictly according to the priority number assigned to each registrant and there is no provision under the scheme for allotment of plot on out-of-turn basis on any ground."1
Not satisfied with this response Shri Baldev Raj Sharma moved his first appeal before the Commissioner L&D, DDA protesting "that the reply given by the DDA is mischievous and is not commensurating (sic) with the required information." First Appellate Authority Ms. Asma Manzar in her order of 11.1.2007 has concluded as follows:-
"The PIO has already intimated that priority No. 9292 have been covered in the last draw held on 21.9.05, therefore, it is expected that your number may be covered in the next draw provided that sufficient land and infrastructural services are made available to DDA by other civic agencies. There is no delaying tactics and efforts are being made to liquidate the pendency of Rohini Registrants."
In his prayer before us Shri Baldev Raj Sharma has pleaded as follows:-
"The acts of the respondent is not pardonable, therefore, penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act be imposed.
The appellant may please be provided with all the information, correctly, precisely, completely immediately."
In his response to our appeal notice Shri S. S. Gill present Director (RL) in his letter of 23.6.2008 has sought to trace out each of the question raised in the application and concluded as follows:-
"Since his turn in the priority list has not matured for allotment, he has to wait till his turn comes in the priority list maintained by the Department. Unless sufficient plots are released, no disposal programme can be chalked out by the LSB (Rohini) Branch and hence, no time frame can be given to him."
The appeal was heard on 3-7-08. Appellants held up in the traffic appeared after the hearing. The following are alternately present:
Appellants Shri B. R. Sharma.
Shri Gurdeep Singh.
Shri R. K. Gupta.
Respondent Shri S. S. Gill, Director (RL), DDA. Shri B. K. Ohri, Shri Gurdeep Singh, Learned Council for appellant made his submission in writing as follows:-2
"The letter sent by the DDA to the appellant on dated 23.6.2008 is misleading and has no nexus to the information sought by the appellant. The information in para 1, 2, 3 have not been provided at all and the information at para 4 is misleading, incomplete, incorrect and mischievous as after 28 years the DDA is still not aware about the date by which plot will be given, whereas in the brochure it was assured that plots will be allotted within 5 years."
DECISION NOTICE Having examined the records we find that in fact all but the last of the questions of appellant Shri Baldev Raj Sharma asked in his original application of 31.10.2006 have in fact been answered by PIO Shri D. S. Jaglan. However, these have not been answered point wise as required u/s 7 (9) which mandates that "an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought".
Further details have in fact been provided in PIO, S. S. Gill's response of 23.6.2008 to our appeal notice, a copy of which has been endorsed to appellant Shri B. R. Sharma .This response has also answered the fourth and last question in the list of questions of appellant in his original application by indicating that no time frame can be given to him.
Although, therefore, the response was not in accordance with the form prescribed under the RTI Act, the information sought by appellant has in fact been provided. The PIO is cautioned to adhere more closely to the requirements of the Act in servicing RTI applications. However, since the substantive information sought by appellant has been provided to him the appeal as such is not sustainable and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 3-7-2008 3 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 3-7-2008 4