Shri Ajit Singh Malik vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 April, 2007

Central Information Commission
Shri Ajit Singh Malik vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 April, 2007

the Govt. of India and the Govt.’s
change of land use from environment Notification given on
agricultural and rural use permission date 19.9.06 EIA clearance
zone to residential and etc. etc. date evaded in letter dt.

   public and semi public                              27.12.06 w.r.t alleged 
   facilities has been notified                        GNCTD circular dt. 
   by the Govt. of India last                          14.9.06, whereas EIA 
   year.                                               was required by MoEF
                                                       notification dt. 7.7.04 & 
                                                       DPCC public notice 

3  GNCTD A/c Mandi... this         ... Date etc. of    Advice to approach 
   land has been directly          Allotment &         GNCTD
   allotted by the Lt.Governor.    constn. 
   ... only certain temporary      permission 
   structures are being put up 
   ... which are permissible 
   under the Master Plan in a 
   Regional Park. 
4  GNCTD Institute of Live         Date of public      Advice to approach
   Sciences the land for the       notice & Constn.    GNCTD
   hospital was allotted in        Permission etc.
   public interest by DDA ...      etc.
   Delhi Govt. is constructing 
   the hospital and the change 
   of land use is under 
5  WATER SUPPLY: DDA/              When compulsory     Advice to approach DJB 
   Private Individual Allottees    permission was 
   take clearance from the         granted to above-
   DJB before starting any         mentioned. 
   project.                        from Delhi Jal 
6  In the MPD 2001,                There is scheme     Not given despite FA 
   integration of villages with    of integration of   order. 
   the urban development           villages... in 
   have been suggested the         village             Letter dt. 23.11.06 said  
   Economically Weaker             development         "it is policy issue and, 
   Section, the work place are     scheme... in        therefore, does not 
   generated by developing         villages whose      pertain to any particular 
   the residential areas where     land has been       department, therefore, it 
   these people can have job       acquired... that    is not a proposal but a 
   related with the household      these residents     policy statement. 
   assistance.                     should become
                                   domestic servants 
                                   in these houses... 
                                   but it has not 
                                   been informed 
                                   that whose 
                                   proposal it was?


9. A copy of this rejoinder was also provided in the hearing to respondent Shri Pankaj Kumar. On perusing this he agreed that the specific information sought could be provided.


10. The information sought is related only to an affidavit presented by the public authority itself. It is quite clear that for preparing this affidavit although the information may have been sought from many quarters, the record should be accessible through one source. We, therefore, take an adverse view of the manner in which the simple information sought, the appellant has been given the run around for over a year without result. Representative of appellant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma has admitted that there was no lack of good intention in this matter, but the results seem to have been along the proverbial ‘way’, and the opposite of what was intended. Now, therefore, we direct Shri A.K. Gupta, Addl. Commissioner (Area Planning-II), whose department is primarily responsible for maintaining the records of the information sought, will obtain the information from all the necessary authorities and provide this to applicant Shri Ajit Singh Malik within 15 working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

11. However, the issue of delay in providing the information now needs to be addressed. During the hearing no satisfactory explanation could be provided for this. Even though appellant has not questioned the sincerity of the PIOs in this matter, as held by us in the case of Er Sarbajit Roy v. D.D.A. Vide Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC dated 7.8.06, it is the primary responsibility of the CPIO to whom the application is submitted to obtain and provide the information to an applicant. That order concerned the very public authority that is respondent in this case and, therefore, there is little excuse for the failure to adhere to this direction in the present application. Shri O.P. Mishra, OSD (Lands) to whom the initial application was forwarded by the RTI Counter in DDA and Shri Rakesh Bhatnagar to whom the application was addressed by applicant will, therefore, appear before the undersigned on 25.5.2007 at 10.00 a.m. or submit the reasons for this lapse in writing by 5.5.2007.

12. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information