Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4035/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000223
Dated, the 29th May, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. P.K. Rathore
Name of the Public Authority: National Commission for Scheduled Castes
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 27/5/2009.
2. The appellant is a beneficiary of a MIG flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojna,
which is implemented by Delhi Development Authority (DDA). As per the policy
guidelines of DDA, the Conveyance Deed (CD) has to be mandatorily executed
in the name of husband and wife. The appellant, however, insists that the DDA
should execute the CD in the name of the allottee (husband) since he was un-
married at the time of application/allotment of the flat. The appellant has, in
effect, objected the inclusion of his wife’s name, who is a non-Scheduled Caste,
in the documents relating to the Conveyance Deed.
3. In this backdrop, the appellant submitted a complaint to the respondent
and subsequently asked for action taken report on his complaint.
4. The CPIO has replied and indicated the action taken, mainly the
procedure followed by the respondent, for enquiring into the complaints for
redressal of grievances of the SC members against the alleged discrimination on
the grounds of Caste.
5. During the hearing, the appellant alleged that the respondent has not
acted as per its Constitutional obligation and his grievance has not been
redressed. The CPIO refuted the allegations made by the appellant and stated
as under:
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi1
(i) The appellant is a beneficiary of the reservation policy and an
allottee of a MIG flat by the DDA. There is, therefore, no
discrimination against him on the basis of his being a Scheduled
Caste.
(ii) As per its procedure of enquiring into the complaints, the
respondent has asked for comments of the DDA and the M/o Urban
Development and subsequently held hearings of the parties to take
a decision on the complaint petition submitted by the appellant.
(iii) The appellant was duly informed about the action taken on his
complaint, both in writing and in person, when he met the
concerned officials.
Decision:
6. The CPIO has replied and indicated the action taken by the respondent
on the representation submitted by the appellant.
7. The respondent follows an accepted procedure to investigate the
complaints of Scheduled Castes, which should not be challenged under the
provisions of the Act since there is no denial of information in the matter.
8. It is, however, not understandable as to why a beneficiary of DDA flat
under the reservation policy should object to inclusion of his wife’s name for
execution of Conveyance Deed, particularly when it is mandatory for the DDA to
enforce the registration of houses in such categories in the name of both allottee
and his wife. Apparently, there is neither caste based discrimination against the
appellant nor denial of information under the provisions of the Act. This appeal is
considered unnecessary and frivolous. The RTI application in question is a fit
case for inclusion in the category of mis-use of the provisions of the Act for
promotion of personal interest.
9. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. P.K. Rathore, DG-III/217 Vikaspuri, New Delhi -110 018
2. Shri. R. Lakshmi, CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, 5th
floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003.
3. Shri. S.S. Sharma, Appellate Authority, National Commission for
Scheduled Castes, 5th floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi –
110 003.
3