CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/000669
Appellant : Shri K.K. Kurian
Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority
(through Shri S.N. Sharma, Asstt. Director
(LAB) (H))
Date of Hearing : 26.10.2009
Date of Decision : 26.10.2009
FACTS
:
The matter, in short, is that DDA had allotted a Janta Flat
bearing No. 233A, Gazipur to Shri Ashok Kumar in 1986. The flat
changed hands quickly and the appellant is its present owner since
1990. He had requested for conversion of this flat from lease hold to
free hold in 2008. While considering this issue, DDA came to realise
that the original allottee had made a short payment of Rs. 1500/-.
Hence the DDA calculated interest on the above amount and
informed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs 12534/- vide their letter
dated 19.6.2008. The appellant deposited the above amount on
18.8.2008 whereupon the DDA converted the flat to free hold.
2. It is in this context that vide RTI application dated 22.1.2009,
the appellant had sought information on 02 paras. It appears that
CPIO did not give him any response. However, Shri O.P. Gupta,
Director (H)-I/(AA) vide letter dated 31.3.2009 had directed to Shri
V.B. Bansal to provide requisite information to the appellant. Shri
V.B. Bansal, Dy. Director (LAB) (H) had sent a reply to the appellant
vide letter dated 22.4.2009 which is extracted below :-
“Please refer to your appeal application dated 9.3.2009
received in this office vide Dy. J-907/DD dated 2.4.2009 from Shri
O.P. Gupta, AA(H)-I.D(H)-I, DDA vide his order No.
65/RTI/AA(H)-I/ID-378/D(H)-I/09/108 dated 31.3.2009 on the above
noted subject. In this regard, it is intimated that information sought in
your RTI application ID No. 378 dated 22.1.2009 does not pertain to
this office. The same has already been forwared to Dy. Director
(Janta)-H and Sr. AO(EZ) for furnishing a suitable reply in the matter.
The concerned PIO’s have again been advised to furnish a suitable
reply to your RTI application dated 22.1.2009. Since, information
sought by you total pertains to Finance Wing, therefore, your appeal
application is forwarded to FA(H) for furnishing a suitable reply to
you directly. As far as, payment demanded of Rs. 12,534/-0 is
concerned, in this regard, it is intimated that in the above said amount
Rs. 1500/- is towards less demanded amount from the registrant
belonging to SC/ST and Rs. 11,034/0- is intereret thereon.”
He had also marked a copy of his letter to FA(H) (AA).
3. Dissatisfied with the decision of Shri Bansal, the appellant has
filed the present appeal.
4. Heard on 26.10.2009. Appellant present. The public authority
is represented by the officer named above. It is the forceful
submission of the appellant that raising a demand of Rs. 1500/- from
the original allottee, that is, Shri Ashok Kumar was an after-thought
on the part of DDA and it reflects adversely on its functioning. If
DDA had charged the correct amount from Shri Ashok Kumar, then
he would not have been required to pay an amount of Rs. 12,534/-
after all these years. It is also his say that a concession of Rs. 1500/-
was given to original allottee as he belonged to SC/ST category. If
the flat had continued with Shri Ashok Kumar, neither the amount of
1500/- nor any interest thereon would have been charged from him.
Hence, the additional charge raised by DDA is totally unjustifiable.
5. He also draws Commission’s attention to the judgment of
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dated 7.4.2006 in
HUDA Vs Kaur Singh [(III) (2006) CPJ372NC] wherein it has been
held that compound interest can not be charged from the allottee.
Para 7 of the judgment is extracted below :-
“7. This Commission also has occasion to deal with the
same issue more than once and have consistently held that rate
of interest chargeable from the allottees would be on simple
interest basis and not on compound interest basis. In fact, it is
two-way traffic-whenever the Commissions or the Courts have
awarded interest against HUDA they have also been given
interest on simple interest basis and not on compound interest
basis.”
INTERIM DECISION
6. From the above, it would be seen that the appellant has
essentially raised two issues :-
(i) whether raising a demand of Rs. 1500/- is justified at all in the
facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the
original allottes happens to be of SC/ST category; &
(ii) if at all this demand is justified, whether the interest charged on
this amount should be ‘compound interest’ or ‘simple interest’.
7. I would like to hear Financial Advisor (H) on this issue before
deciding the matter. Hence, notices may be issued to Shri Pawan
Kumar, Financial Advisor (H) & Shri O.P. Gupta, Director (H)-I to
appear before the Commission on 18.11.2009 at 1230 hrs.
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
Address of parties :-
1. Shri Pawan Kumar
Financial Advisor,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023
2. Shri O.P. Gupta
Director (H)-I,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023
3. Shri S.N. Sharma
Asstt. Director (LAB) (H),
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023
4. Shri K.K. Kurian
A-87, Nehru Gali,
Mandawali Extn,
Delhi-110092