873 Amit Gupta Vs DDA 05 10 9 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000873
Shri Amit Gupta Vs. DDA dated 5.10.2009
This is in continuation of this Commission’s Interim Decision dated 22/09/2009.
As scheduled, the matter came up for hearing today dated 05/10/2009. Appellant present.
The Public authority is represented by Shri D.K. Gupta, Deputy Director(Housing)(LIG)
who presents a copy of his letter dated 17/04/2009 addressed to the appellant. The
relevant para is extracted below:-
“1(a & b). As far as your application No.0229652 was included in the draw or
not. This is to be replied by the Director(System). However, the information is
also available on DDA’s website i.e. www.dda.org.in.
2. This is to be replied by Director(System). However, the registration money in
case of doubtful cases has also been released to the respective Banks. You are,
therefore, advised to contact the Bank where you have deposited your application
No. 0229652.”
It is his submission that even though this letter was written in response to a
different RTI application, the issue raised in the RTI application in question has been
adequately addressed and information provided within the stipulated time frame. Hence,
the claim of compensation is not legally sustainable and deserves to be dismissed.
2. The appellant fairly concedes that DDA’s letter dated 17/04/2009 was received by
him but the amount was not released to the ICICI Bank and in support thereof he
produces an email dated 14/09/2009 purported to have been sent to him by ICICI Bank
wherein it is mentioned as follows:-
“We reiterate that the balance amount of refund is still not received from
DDA and we are still pursued with DDA for refund.”
It is, thus, his submission that DDA furnished him factually incorrect information.
Another submission of the appellant is that vide letter dated 03/08/2009, he was intimated
by Deputy Director(Housing)(LIG) that an amount of Rs.5,000/- had been deducted from
the registration money from each of the applicant by way of penalty and administrative
charges, in cases of multiple applications filed under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008.
Thus contradictory information has been provided to him by DDA.
3. As far as the first submission of the appellant is concerned, Deputy director, DDA
would submit that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was, refunded to the appellant on 26/08/2009
and, therefore, the email of the Bank dated 14/09/2009 is not relevant. Regarding the
second submission of the appellant, he would submit that the information provided to the
appellant is factually correct but it was applicable only to those applicants who had filed
multiple applications but the appellant did not fall in that category.
873 Amit Gupta Vs DDA 05 10 9 2
DECISION
4. From the above discussion, it would be seen that the appellant has admittedly got
refund of Rs.5,000/- on 26/08/2009. However, the submission of the appellant that he
was given unnecessary information vide letter dated 03/08/2009 that an amount of
Rs.5,000/- was being deducted in certain cases vide letter dated 03/08/2009 cannot be
disregarded. Similarly, his submission that vide letter dated 17/04/2009, he was informed
by Deputy Director(Housing)(LIG) that the refund amount had been sent to the ICICI
bank and he had been advised to contact the bank but this information was not given to
him with reference to the RTI application in hand but in reference to some other RTI
application, also cannot be overlooked. The fact remains that DDA has done the right
thing by refunding the money but the requisite information was not sent to him with
reference to the RTI application in question. Further, some additional information was
sent to him which the appellant has not asked for. In our opinion, it is not a case of denial
of information and, hence, no compensation is awardable to the appellant. However, the
Commission will be failing in its duty if it does not caution the CPIO to provide precise
information with reference to the RTI application in question and not mingle it with
information relating to another RTI application and also to guard against providing
unasked for information, as has happened in this case, in future.
5. The appeal is dismissed subject to the above observations.
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
Tele: 011 2671 73 53/Fax: 011 2610 62 76
Copy to:-
(1) Shri Amit Gupta,
Flat No. 1034, Plot No.23,
Apna village, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
(2) Shri D.K. Gupta,
Deputy Director(H)(LIG),
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
873 Amit Gupta Vs DDA 05 10 9 3