P.G. Tahilramani vs Dda on 17 July, 2009

          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
         Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

                          File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01413/LS
                       P.G. Tahilramani Vs DDA dated 17.7.2009
       The Commission had heard this matter on 24.10.2008 and recorded a
decision which is reproduced here below :-

"FACTS OF THE CASE:
By his letter of 16/08/2007, the Appellant had requested for certain information from
DDA in connection with the allotment of a flat to him. PIO had sent a letter to him
vide his letter dated 18/09/2007. Not satisfied with this, the Appellant had filed an
Appeal on 27/09/2007. The Appellate Authority had decided the matter vide letter of
16/10/2007.

2. The present Appeal has been filed against decision of the Appellate Authority.

3. The matter was heard on 24/10/2008. The Appellant appeared in person. The
DDA was represented by Smt. Krishna Mehta, Deputy Director, and two other
officers. I heard the Appellant and also Smt. Mehta. The main grievance of the
appellant is that his letter dated 16/09/1985, wherein he had given his local address
as also permanent address was duly received by DDA and was duly recorded by the
Systems Department of DDA, and yet the DDA failed to deliver the flat allotment
letter to him on the permanent address. On the other hand, the submission of Smt.
Mehta is that they have caused an internal inquiry into the matter in October, 2007 as
per which the letter purported to have been sent by the Appellant was not received by
DDA.
                                       DECISION
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Deputy Director, DDA, is directed to
have an inquiry caused by an officer of the rank of Assistant Director, to determine
whether the letter dated 16/09/1985 of the Appellant was received in any section,
including the Systems Department, of the DDA or not, and thereafter send the
outcome of the inquiry to the Appellant within a period of four weeks.

5. The matter is disposed of accordingly."

2.      It may be recalled that in the aforesaid order Dy. Director, DDA, was
directed to have an inquiry conducted through an officer of the rank of Asstt.
Director to determine whether appellant Shri A.G. Tahilramani's letter dated
16.9.2005 regarding change of address was received in any section of DDA or not.

3.      Vide letter dated 23.3.2009, appellant Shri Tahilramani had filed a non-
compliance petition before this Commission. Hence, it was decided to issue notices
to the concerned officer of DDA and the appellant for deciding the non-compliance
petition.
 4.      The matter was heard on 17.7.2009. DDA is represented by Shri Mahabir
Singh, Dy. Director (MIG). Appellant Shri Tahilramani is also present. It is the
submission of Shri Mahabir Singh that in compliance of the order of this
Commission, an Asstt. Director had conducted inquiry into the matter and submitted
a report to Dy. Director (MIG) (H) on 7.1.2009. He produces the report before the
Commission which is perused. A bare reading of the Asstt. Director's report
indicates that appellant's letter dated 17.9.1985 was duly received in the Housing
Department of DDA which contained his new address. It is the submission of the
appellant that he was allotted a MIG flat by DDA in 2003 but no Demand-cum-
Allotment letter was sent to him and he came to know about it only in 2005.
Thereafter he took up the matter with DDA and he was allotted another flat in 2005
which was smaller than the original allotted flat. His principal submission is that late
allotment of flat not only caused to him metal torture but he had also to pay
additional amount to DDA for no fault of his. According to him, the total loss
caused to him is about Rs. 3.36 lakhs.

5.      Needless to say, it is the duty of DDA to ensure that a valuable document like
Demand-cum-Allotment letter is delivered to the allottees on the addresses given by
them. But this did not happen in this case, even though the appellant had duly
indicated his new address to DDA vide his letter dated 17.9.1985 which was duly
received in DDA. He, thus, cannot be held responsible for non-delivery of original
Demand-cum-Allotment letter to him. There, thus, appears to be a deficiency in
service on the part of the DDA which has caused avoidable financial loss to the
appellant.
                                        DECISION
6.       In view of the above, Shri Mahabir Singh, Dy. Director, is hereby directed to
provide certified copies of the relevant documents to the appellant in 02 weeks time.
It is open to the appellant to seek relief in the appropriate forum, if so advised.

7.     The matter stands closed at the Commission's end.
                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                      (M.L. Sharma)
                                                   Central Information Commissioner

       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.

(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar

Addresses of parties :-
1.

Shri Mahabir Singh 2. Shri Prakash G. Tahilramani
Dy. Director (MIG), 237, MIG, Prasad Nagar,
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110005
New Delhi.