In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
1 CIC/AD/C/2011/001522 2 CIC/AD/C/2011/001523
3 CIC/AD/C/2011/001524 4 CIC/AD/C/2011/001525
5 CIC/AD/C/2011/001526 6 CIC/AD/C/2011/001612
7 CIC/AD/C/2011/001613 8 CIC/AD/C/2011/001614
9 CIC/AD/C/2011/001615 10 CIC/AD/C/2011/001616
11 CIC/AD/C/2011/001617 12 CIC/AD/C/2011/001618
13 CIC/AD/C/2011/001619 14 CIC/AD/C/2011/001620
15 CIC/AD/C/2011/001621 16 CIC/AD/C/2011/001622
17 CIC/AD/C/2011/001623 18
Date of Hearing : November 22, 2011
Date of Decision : November 22, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri. Sanjay Chiripal
N1, Rivierra Apartments
45 Mall Road
Delhi 110 054
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
Registrar Cooperative Societies
Parliament Street
New Delhi 110 001
Represented by : Shri. L.C.Meena, Asst. Registrar
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
1 CIC/AD/C/2011/001522 2 CIC/AD/C/2011/001523
3 CIC/AD/C/2011/001524 4 CIC/AD/C/2011/001525
5 CIC/AD/C/2011/001526 6 CIC/AD/C/2011/001612
7 CIC/AD/C/2011/001613 8 CIC/AD/C/2011/001614
9 CIC/AD/C/2011/001615 10 CIC/AD/C/2011/001616
11 CIC/AD/C/2011/001617 12 CIC/AD/C/2011/001618
13 CIC/AD/C/2011/001619 14 CIC/AD/C/2011/001620
15 CIC/AD/C/2011/001621 16 CIC/AD/C/2011/001622
17 CIC/AD/C/2011/001623 18
ORDER
Background
CIC/AD/C/2011/001522
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.11.7.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the following information
since 1.1.06 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide a list of all pending dues from members(of monthly maintenance) as on 11.7.11. Also
provide details of action taken since 11.5.11 till date on members from whom dues exceed Rupees
three thousand only(as per the resolution of General Body meeting)’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.13.8.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001523
2. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.11.7.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the following information
since 1.1.06 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide certified copies of all letters/representations etc., received from the office of the RCS
and/or the Returning officer of the society from 11.5.11 till date and which have been addressed to
the Administrator of the Society and have been received either at the office of the society or the office
of the Administrator. Also provide details of all actions taken on the said letters/representations by
the Administrator of the Society. Also provide certified copies of any/all letters written in response to
the said letters/representations received by the Administrator either at the office of the society or the
office of the Administrator’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.13.8.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001524
3. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.11.7.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the following information
since 1.1.06 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘What action has been taken by the Administrator of the Society in his official capacity regarding the
pending bill of Delhi Jal Board pertaining to the Society’.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.13.8.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001525
4. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.11.7.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the following information
since 1.1.06 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide list of all pending court cases (in any competent court of law) involving the society and
their next date of hearings. What is the present status of the appeal filed by Shri. G.S.Saini in Delhi
Cooperative Tribunal against the Arbitration Award dt.1.4.11. Did the new Administrator submit a
vakalatnama on 4.6.11 and 1.7.11 before DCT in the appeal filed by Shri. G.S.Saini’.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.13.8.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001526
5. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.11.7.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the following information
since 1.1.06 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide certified copies of all/any resolutions as passed by Shri. K.S.Singh, Administrator of
the Society.’.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.13.8.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001612
6. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Shri. P.K.Vashist, Mnager of the society Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001613
7. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Shri. P.K.Vashist appeared on 5.8.11 before Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. Kindly provide certified
copy of the Authority letter that was given by the Administrator of the society to Shri. P.K.Vashist to
appear before DCT on 5.8.11. From when and which date has Shri. P.K.Vashist taken charge of the
society as the manager of the society’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001614
8. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘An agenda notice dated 29.7.11 was issued by Shri. K.S.Singh, Administrator of the Society to
convene an SGBM on 7.8.11 in the society. On whose requisition the said SGBM was called by the
Administrator of the Society. What was the source of the Agenda notice points issued on 29.7.11 by
the Administrator of the Society’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001615
9. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘An award dated 1.4.11 was awarded in favour of the Society by the Arbitrator Shri. Prakash Chandra
in the matter of Riviera Apartments versus G.S.Saini. The time given by the Arbitrator was two
months to pay back the money to the society and which was till 31.5.11. There was no stay on the
award till 4.7.11. Did Shri. K.S.Singh, Administrator of the Society file any execution proceedings
against the award dated 1.4.11 from 1.6.11 till 4.7.11. if yes, certified copies may be provided. What
action has been taken by the Administrator on the representations dt.7.6.11 and 27.6.11 submitted
by him and certified copies of all actions taken to be provided’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001616
10. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the action taken on his
representations dt.7.6.11, 29.6.11, 5.7.11, 9.7.11, 13.7.11, 14.7.11, 21.7.11, 22.7.11, 27.7.11 and
31.7.11 submitted by him. He wanted the certified copies of the all the actions taken and certified
copies of the file notings that have been initiated for taking actions on the said representation.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001617
11. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information about
Shri. M.S.Yadav and Shri. P.K.Vashist, Managers of the society.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001618
12. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘kindly provide certified copies of all the vouchers pertaining o expenses of any kind of the society
from 11.5.11 till date’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001619
13. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.2.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘What action has been taken by the present Administrator of the society in his official capacity
regarding the pending bill of Delhi Jal Board pertaining to the society from 11.5.11 till date. Details of
all the actions taken may be provided together with the certified copies of the correspondence done
in this regard.’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001620
14. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.2.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide a list of all pending dues from members(of monthly maintenance) as on 2.8.11. Also
provide details of action taken since 11.5.11 till date on members from whom dues exceed Rupees
three thousand only(as per the resolution of General Body meeting)’
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001621
15. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.2.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide certified copies of all/any resolutions as passed by Shri. K.S.Singh, Administrator of
the Society from 11.5.11 till date.’.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001622
16. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.2.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘An agenda notice dated 30.7.11 was issued by the Administrator of the Society to convene a SGBM
on 7.8.11 in the society. Kindly provide a certified copy of the requisition letter received from
members of the society on the basis of which this SGBM has been called’.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
CIC/AD/C/2011/001623
17. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.2.8.11 with the PIO, RCS seeking the information since
1.1.05 with regard to the Society Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited:
‘Kindly provide certified copies of all the letters/representations etc. received from the office of the
RCS and/or the Returning officer of the Society from 11.7.11 till date and which have been
addressed to the Administrator of the Society and have been received either at the office of the
society or the office of the Administrator. Also provide details of all actions taken on the said
letters/representations by the Administrator of the society. Also provide certified copies of any/all
letters written in response to the said letters/representations received by the Administrator either at
the office of the society or the office of the Administrator’.
On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.14.9.11 before CIC.
Decision
17. During the hearing, the Complainant submitted that none of his RTI Applications has been responded
to either by the Riviera Apartments., OCHS Limited Society or by the RCS while relying upon the CIC
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/000269/2822 dt.20.4.09 in which the Commission had decided that the
Society is a Public Authority. He added that the petition filed by the RCS against this order was also
dismissed by the competent court who upheld the decision of the Commission.
The Complainant also produced before the Commission a letter dt.7.10.11 written by the Manager of
the Society who stated that the Administrator Shri. K.S.Singh has not replied to any RTI Applications
either u/s139 of the DCS Act 2003 and/or RTI Act 2005. The Complainant further added that no
response has been received from the Society even after several reminders. In support of his
contention, he produced before the Commission the relevant extract of the Supreme Court judgment
in the case of Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat which is
reproduced below:
‘…..Acts and Rules are made to be followed and not to be violated. When the Statute prescribes the
norms to be followed, it has to be in that fashion. Converse would be contrary to law. If there is any
allegation of violation of statutory rules which have been brought to the notice of the authorities and if
the concerned authorities do not perform their statutory obligation, as in the present case, any
aggrieved citizen can always bring to the notice of the High Court about the inaction about the
inaction of the statutory authorities and in such event it would always be open to the High Court to
pass an appropriate order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case…’
The Respondents on the other hand submitted that the Administrator had relinquished his duty on
12.9.11 and that he is no longer in service and that the RTI application was not responded to since no
one had been posted as the Administrator cum PIO till recently ie. on 15.11.11 . The Respondents
further added that all the RTI applications which are pending are being replied to by the new
Administrator. He assured the Commission that information sought by the Appellant will be provided
to him as all RTI Applications were transferred to the Administrator once again on 18.11.11.
18. It is clear from the discussions that took place during the hearing that the Appellant is aggrieved with
the fact that the PIO of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies have not bothered to reply to his 16
RTI application even though he was aware of the fact that the Administrator cum PIO had
relinquished charge several months ago and that it is for the RCS to appoint the Administrator, well in
time. Not taking on this responsibility and not furnishing the information on time by the RCS, even
after the PIO was absent for months has clearly caused significant detriment to the Appellant in
terms of loss of his time and finances while approaching the Commission in each case, besides
causing him unwarranted harassment. The Commission, therefore directs the Public Authority
(Registrar of Cooperative Societies) to compensate the Appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act with
Rs, 4,000/ for such loss and detriment suffered.
19. The PIO, RCS to forward a copy of this order to the Administrator with the direction that he furnish
the information as available in the records of the Public Authority i.e. the Housing Society to the
Complainant by 25.12.11.
19. The PIO, RCS is also directed to explain as to why no action has been taken with regard to the
disposal of RTI Applications received by them with regard to the Housing Society although they were
well aware that the Adminsitrator has relinquished charge. He is directed to submit his written
response so as to reach the Commission by 29.12.11.
20. The Complaints are disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri. Sanjay Chiripal
N1, Rivierra Apartments
45 Mall Road
Delhi 110 054
2. The Public Information Officer
Registrar Cooperative Societies
Parliament Street
New Delhi 110 001
3. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.
