CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00605 dated 23-5-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri Som Dutt Chhabra.
Respondent: Delhi Development Authority, (DDA)
ORDER
In our decision of 20-7-2008 we had directed as follows:-
“Shri Vinod Sakle, Director (Bldg.) DDA and Shri J.P. Verma, SE
(Hq.) SWZ will show cause as to why each of them or both they
should not be penalized @ Rs. 250/- per day from the date that the
information sought became due i.e. 19-4-08 till the information
sought was supplied i.e. 30-4-08 amounting to Rs. 2,500/-. They
may do this either in writing by 10th August 2008 or by personal
appearance before us on 22nd August 2008 at 4.00 p.m.”
Upon this we have received the following response dated 8.8.2008 from
Shri Vinod Sakle, Director (Bldg), PIO, DDA.
“The role of building section is only to sanction the building plan of
the plotted development under the provisions of Master Plan/ Zonal
Plan within approved layout plan where the particular plots exists
for which sanction is desired. Therefore, in the first instance efforts
were made to locate the concerned file adjacent to this area where
the community hall is proposed & sanctioned by the department.
Based on the information given by the applicant, since, it was
essential for other requirements of the applicant. When no such
proposal was traceable, therefore, further efforts were made to co-
relate proposal was traceable, therefore, further efforts were made
where community hall is forming a part of the same. The exercise
was quite time consuming & requiring man power & also concerns
different DDA’s Departments & Units of building section. When all
such information were not available, therefore, reply was given on
30.4.08 to the applicant that the issues concerns Engineering
Department/ DDA with the intention that the Engineering Deptt are
the custodian of area under their jurisdiction in the construction
activities. They may perhaps comments on the issue, if some
proposal is being initiated under their control.”
We have received no response from SE (Hqrs).The matter was heard on
22-8-2008. Shri Mohan Chandra, Dy. Director (Bldg), DDA is present.
1
If, in fact the role of Building Section was limited in processing this RTI
request Director (Bldg), Shri Vinod Sakle has not been able to explain why the
request was not referred immediately to the Engineering Department, which is
the custodian of the area under its jurisdiction in construction activities as he was
equired to do u/s 5(4) read with Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, we hold
Shri Vinod Sakle, Director (Bldg), PIO, DDA and Shri J. P. Verma, SE (Hqrs),
jointly liable for the delay in responding to the RTI application amounting to Rs.
2500/-. Shri Verma has chosen not to avail of the opportunity provided to him to
be heard either in writing or in person.
Shri Nigam, Vice Chairman, DDA is directed to recover Rs. 1,250/-
each either by deposit or by deduction from the salaries of Shri Vinod
Sakle, Director (Bldg) and Shri J. P. Verma, SE (Hqrs) by 3rd October 2008.
under intimation to Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, CIC.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22-8-2008
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.
(L.C.Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
22-8-2008
2