CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000981/3708
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000981
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : M.G.George,
Flat No. 12,
City Apartment,
Plot No. 21, Vasundhra Enclave,
Delhi-110 096.
Respondent : T. K.Jain, Asst.registrar(East)
Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 01.09.2008
PIO replied : 06.10.2008
First Appeal filed on : 01.12.2008
First Appellate Authority order : 29.01.2009
Second Appeal received on : 30.04.2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought for information regarding flat No. 62 (HIG Simplex) in the The Nav
Jagriti Cooperatuve CGHS Ltd., Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi-11096 vide sale deed dated
25.08.06.) purchased by his daughter. He sought for very specific information regarding
several charges relating to his daughter’s flat. However, the details of the information sought
by the appellant are following: How can the Management Committee raise the demand for
the Maintenance charges at Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.04, when that was not an item of
the agenda? How cant the Management Committee raise the demand for Building
Maintenance fund at Rs.3000.00 per annum w.e.f 01.04.04 when this was not an item of the
agenda. Validity and legality of decisions purported to have been taken in the GBM. As per
the by law of the society “No member of the committee shall receive any remuneration for
his work as a member of the Committee”. How can the society allow such expenses, without
any details and proper justification? Is it not the fundamental right of the members to resort
to legal remedies when they are disgruntled? It is not the fundamental right of the members
to initiate legal action the society for their wrong action. By passing such resolution Is it not
the M.C. trying to interfere into the fundamental right of the members?
Where is the desired information as per provision 93(1) of the DCS Act? How can the GBM
pass the budget when it is not as per the relevant provision of the DCS Act.
5. When the members have already filed their objections against the illegal and wrong
decisions circulated in the minutes and the consequent demand raised by the society vide
their letter dated 01.12.07 as per Rule 52(2) of the DCS Rules, whether the demand letter
referred 01.12.07 is sustainable and the members are bound to make the payment?
6. Whether the AGBM is empowered to pass any rewolu8tion or take decisions apparently
in violation of the provisions of the DCS Act and DCS Rules prevailing, and by laws of the
society.
The reply of PIO:
The issues raised are not information sought rather they are dispute between a member and a
society redress able u/s 70 of DCS Act. 2003. Decision is only maintainable in accordance
with DCS Act & Rule and redress able also lies in the provision of DCS Act & Rule. S.No.6
—–No—-
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
As directed during the proceeding held on 05.01.2009, the Appellant could not submit the
separate authorization on behalf of his daughter. The representatives of the society submitted
their reply, which was taken on record. The representatives of society while filing their reply
stated that the appellant was not a member of society and hence he had no right to seek
information from the society. The language of the information sought makes it
inadmissible, as it does not fall under the category of information in terms of section
2(f) of RTI Act. However, the reply submitted by the society was being sent to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. M.G.George
Respondent : Mr.T. K.Jain, PIO
What the appellant is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The PIO has tried to provide some clarification. Since what is sought is not information the
answers will not be adequate.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
What has been sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(Rnj)