CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01139/SG/3784
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01139/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Subodh Jain
B-320, MIG Flats,
East Loni Road, Delhi-110093
Respondent : Mr. Naresh Pratap
PIO & Dy. Director
Community Services Department
Office of the Director
16, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054.
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2007
PIO replied : 26/06/2007
First appeal filed on : 04/08/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 09/08/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 13/09/2007
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Is it true that the then Dy. Governor has Does not pertain to this department.
visited MIG Flats, East Loni Road, with
Municipal Commissioner on
17.05.2000?
2. Had the Dy. Governor ordered DDA to Does not pertain to this department.
give the old site office to MCD for
construction of community center in the
colony?
3. Had the DDA asked this department to DDA had asked to deposit Rs.1090640/-
deposit Rs.10, 90,64/- for constructed for allotment of 1864 Sq.Ft. plot vide
building on the said site after the order letter no. F.23(3)/2001/IL/1400 dated
of Dy. Governor. 19.04.2002.
4. Had DDA again asked to deposit the In reply of the above said letter, DDA
same amount after not receiving reply was made aware of the situation vide
from the AD? letter no. 520/…./2002 dated 02.09.2002.
5. Had Dy. Director of DDA asked to Allotment of land has been regained from
deposit the requisite amount required for DDA vide letter F23(3)01/IL/3356 on
transferring the land? 22.10.2002.
6. What actions have been taken by your As above.
department after receiving letter?
7. Had your department denied to deposit As above.
the said amount? What was the cause?
8. Had your department transferred to Copy of the above said letter was sent to
other department/branch? Executive Engineer (Project), Part-
XXVII.
9. If transferred then to whom? Give the Copy of both the above said letter has
details of the actions and photocopies of been provided (enclosed).
the letters.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority
The FAA rejected the appeal for being time barred as the appellant has filed his appeal after
expiry of one month.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Naresh Pratap, PIO
The appellant has contended that the statements mentioned in the reply were not attached. The
PIO insist that these were attached. The Commission directs the PIO to send the copies of the
attested statements again to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will send the certified copies of the statements to the appellant before 30 June 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
If information is not provided in the time stipulated under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, it has to be provided free of
cost to the Appellant
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)