373 PuneetMehtaVsDDA 30 07 12 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Complaint No. CIC/LS/C/2009/000373
Complainant: Shri Puneet Mehta
Public Authority: Delhi Development Authority
(through Shri K.C. Surender,
Deputy Director (Commercial Estate))
Date of Hearing: 30/07/2009
Date of Decision: 30/07/2009
FACTS
:-
The matter, in short, is that the DDA had invited tenders for the sale of built up
shops in Rohini area sometime in 2000. The complainant had successfully bidden for
two shops and had paid up as per the demand letter. However, two months later, DDA
asked for payment for the additional area of what it called ‘mezzanine floor’. The
complainant and many other co-allottees agitated the matter in the High Court. The
matter, ultimately, landed up in the Supreme Court which advised the allottees of shops
(including the complainant) to exercise one of the three options given vide DDA’s letter
dated 11/08/2000 and pursuant thereto the complainant had paid additional amount for
the ‘mezzanine floor’. The DDA is now demanding interest on the late payment of
additional amount made in respect of mezzanine floor. It is in this context that vide his
letter of 19/01/2009, the complainant had sought information on 18 paras from DDA.
This was responded to by Shri Yashpal Garg, Director(CL), vide letter dated 03/03/2009.
2. Aggrieved with this, Shri Mehta has filed the present complaint.
3. Heard on 30/07/2009. Complainant present. The public authority is represented by
the officer named above. It is the complainant’s forceful contention that it is not
mezzanine floor as per building bye laws and no interest is payable by him.
DECISION
4. In the given scenario, it is for the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to clarify as to
whether any interest is to be paid or not. The Commission has no say in the matter.
However, during the hearing, the complainant requests for inspection of 16 Nos. of files
concerning the same matter. Even though it is a third party information, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the complainant is allowed. The CPIO
is directed to allow the complainant to carry out inspection of 3-4 files wherein payments
were made for ‘mezzanine floor’ and also to provide copies of documents, including
note-sheets, free of cost.
373 PuneetMehtaVsDDA 30 07 12 2
5. If some part of the information is not available with the CPIO, he would be at
liberty to seek this information from the concerned officer of DDA, u/s 5(4) of the RTI
Act.
6. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 05 weeks time.
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 Puneet Mehta,
66, Samrat Enclave,
Delhi-34.
(2) Shri K.C. Surender, - (02 copies)
Deputy Director(Commercial Estate),
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.