CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002330/9591
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002330
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Tarsem Kumar Kaushish
701, Savera Appartments, Plot No.5,
Sector – 13, Rohini, Delhi – 110085.
Respondent : Ms. Anita Agarwal
Public Information Officer & Senior Manager
Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Limited
3/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi – 110049.
RTI application filed on : 28/04/2010
PIO replied : 22/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 19/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 07/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 18/08/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether the society received any complaints No such information was available in our record.
(from the members/residents of the above
mentioned Society regarding payment of loan
installments /pre-payments paid by them not The information sought did not cover under the definition
having been passed on to your office over the of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
years. If so details of action that had been taken
for the same as per the provisions in the loan
agreement with the Society.
2. As per the loan agreement the society was to get As per the provisions of the DCS Act the Registrar Coop
audited its accounts every year from the Society. Societies is the competent authority to get the audit of the
Whether it was being done regularly? If not, the society at the interval of each financial year. As per the
years for which the same were not done and the Society’s record, it had submitted the audit report for the
action taken by the Society. period 30.06.1985, and 30.06.1987.
The society has not submitted the audit accounts for the
rest of the years. However, the society had been asked
persistently to submit the report from time to tine.
The information did not covered under the definition of
information as defined under Section 2(1) of the RTI Act
3. The names of the beneficiary loaned members if A loan of `66.99 lakhs was sanctioned to the society vide
any, of the society. letter dated 19/12/1986 for construction of the society’s
project. Copy of letter dated 19/12/1986 running in 3
pages had been given. Loan distribution settlement had
been provided by the society, but it could not be provided
as such information was held in fiduciary relationship
which involved commercial/trade secret interest and third
party information which is specifically exempted from
disclosure under section 8(1)(d) & (c) of the Act and read
with Section 11 of the Act.
Page 1 of 2
4. Whether the society ever entered into any The Society in its general body meeting got approved the
agreement with non-loaned members also. Details term of the Loan Agreement for grant of loan to the
thereof. Society on behalf of their members for completion of
society’s project which covered all the dwelling
units/members of the society
5. Whether the loan linked shares had been adjusted Yes.
against the loan/interest etc. around September The loan linked share money of
2004. If so the total amount of the share money `384000/- has been adjusted in
which was adjusted. September 04.
6. Were the loan linked shares adjusted earlier No.
occasions also on the request of the society or It does not qualify as the above reply is in negative
otherwise. If so, the details of the same.
7. Whether the dividends on the loan linked shares Yes.
also adjusted against loan/interest in the years A statement running under 1 page was provided
prior to September2004. If so, year wise details of (enclosed) indicating therein the dividend amount of IVT
the same from 1990 onwards. Coop.G/H Society Ltd. paid/adjusted for the year from
1985-86 to 2008-09.
First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA concurred with the reply given by the PIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. N. P. Singh representing Mr. Tarsem Kumar Kaushish;
Respondent : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Public Information Officer & Senior Manager;
The PIO has given most of the information based on the records but is now directed to furnish the
following information:
1- Attested photocopy of loan distribution statement submitted by the society.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the appellant
before 20 October 2010
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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
04 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)
Page 2 of 2