CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00643/LS
Appellant : Shri H.K. Gorowara
Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority
(through Smt. Krishna Mehta, Dy. Director, MIG
(Housing))
Date of Hearing : 23.12.2008
Date of Decision : 23.12.2008
Facts
The background of the matter, in brief, is that the appellant was allotted
MIG Flat No. 92, 1st Floor, Sector-23, Pocket-1, Dawarka, New Delhi on
4.11.1996. Thereupon, he deposited about Rs. 3 lakhs with DDA in 1997 as a
consideration. The balance amount of Rs. 2.66 lakhs was required to be
deposited up to 9.2.1997, but the same was deposited on 5.4.1997. Further,
the monthly installments of Rs. 5,995/- each were due w.e.f. 10.1.1997, which
were deferred to April, 2000. It appears that the appellant did not deposit the
instalments due to which the possession of the flat could not be handed over to
him. In this factual matrix vide his letter dated 4.7.2007, the appellant has
desired to know, as to why the possession of the flat has not been handed over
to him.
2. The PIO through his letter dated 7.8.2007 had forwarded the letter
dated 7.8.2007 received from Dy. Director, MIG (Housing) stating therein the
factual position. On appeal having been filed, the Appellate Authority vide
her letter dated 25.9.2007 had directed the PIO to provide point-wise
information to the appellant.
3. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the CPIO.
4. The matter was heard on 23.12.2008. The appellant is represented by
Shri V.D. Grover. It is the submission of Smt Mehta, that if the appellant
deposits the amount outstanding against him either on cash down basis or pays
up the monthly instalment outstanding against him, DDA has no objection to
handing over the possession of the above mentioned flat to the appellant. On
the other hand Shri Grover submits that he has been requesting DDA May,
2001, onwards to intimate the total amount outstanding against him for
depositing the same but the DDA has not responded to him. He also requests
that DDA should not charge any interest from him ever since he filed the
application in 2001. To this, Smt Mehta responds that the appellant has
already filed a suit in the civil court.
DECISION
5. Strictly speaking, the present appeal does not fall in the ambit of RTI
Act. Even so, the CPIO is directed to intimate the total amount payable by the
appellant, so that he could deposit the same, if he so desires, in 3 weeks time.
6. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
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