362 SubhashChandraVsDDA 12 08 15 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2007/00362/LS
Appellant: Shri Subhash Chandra
Public Authority: Delhi Development Authority
Date of Hearing: 12th and 27th August, 2009
Date of Decision: 27/08/2009
FACTS
:-
The background of the matter is that this Commission vide its decision
dated 16/07/2007, had awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Appellant Shri
Subhash Chandra under the provisions of RTI Act. The operative para of the
order is reproduced here-below:-
“10. The Commission would like to add a word of appreciation for
the Deputy Director(Land), Shri S.P. Bhardwaj, who went to the
greatest length to locate the file. However, it deeply sympathises
with the Appellant who for years went through a period of great
anxiety and uncertainty because of the callousness of the
Department. Although, perhaps, no amount of financial
compensation could be considered enough for putting a citizen
through such mental torture, the Commission directs the
Respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as a
token compensation to him. This must be done by 31 July, 2007.
The Commission actually feels that this amount should be recovered
from the persons who have handled the file so casually. However, it
leaves it to the public authority to decide where this amount should
come from.”
2. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, DDA had filed Writ Petition (Civil)
5563/2007, before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Delhi High
Court, vide order dated 06/07/2009 has remanded the matter back to Central
Information Commission with the direction to the parties or their representatives
to appear before this Commission on 10th of August, 2009. The operative paras
of the order are extracted below:-
362 SubhashChandraVsDDA 12 08 15 2
“7. The impugned order does not state and refer to the provision
under which compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded.
Before awarding any penalty under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, reasonable opportunity has to be given to the
Public Information Officer. Further, the maximum penalty, which
can be imposed is Rs.25,000/-.
8. The respondent No.2 in his reply, on the other hand, has
alleged that compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under
Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The
impugned order does not state so. Further, under Section 19(8)(b),
compensation can be awarded for the loss or detriment suffered for
failure to comply with the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 and the same should be relatable to the loss or damage
suffered by the applicant on the said account. The loss and detriment
suffered must be on account of application made under the Right to
Information Act and failure of the respondents to supply
information. The impugned order does not state that the said
parameters had been kept in mind and on what basis compensation
has been awarded.
9. Accordingly, the impugned direction imposing compensation
of Rs.50,000/- is set aside. In these circumstances, the matter is
remanded back to the Central Information Commission. Parties or
their representatives will appear before the Central Information
Commission on 10th August, 2009.”
3. The matter could not be heard on 10th August, 2009 as Shri M.L. Sharma,
Information Commissioner, who was to hear the matter was on leave. Hence, in
compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the matter was
heard on 12/08/2009. Appellant Shri Subhash Chandra is present before the
Commission along with Shri Dibya Jyoti Jaipuriar. The DDA is represented by
the following officers:-
(1) Shri Subhash Chandra, Director (Lands);
(2) Shri S.S. Gill, Director(RL);
(3) Shri K.K. Sharma, Deputy Director(Lands); &
(4) Shri B.M. Sareen, Deputy Director(LA)(Residential).
4. A brief background of the matter will be in order. As per Appellant's
claim, he holds General Power of Attorney on behalf of Shri Ram Chander, s/o
Shri Birbal, R/o village Khichripur, Delhi, in respect of plot No.177, measuring
about 400 square yards out of Khasra No.219/2, situated in village Khichripur. It
is his clam that a structure built on the said plot was demolished by DDA during
emergency but he was not provided any alternative plot by DDA whereas several
362 SubhashChandraVsDDA 12 08 15 3
other similarly placed persons were allotted plots by DDA. It is in this context
that he had sent a spate of letters to various officers of DDA requesting for
allotment of alternative plot or monetary compensation etc. It will suffice if
various letters addressed by him to various DDA authorities are enumerated in this
Decision. These are as follows:-
(i) Letter dated 01/06/1999, addressed to Vice-Chairman, DDA;
(ii) Letter dated 21/06/1999, addressed to Joint Director(Lands), DDA;
(iii) Letter dated 11/07/1999, addressed to Vice-Chairman, DDA;
(iv) Letter dated 22/09/1999, addressed to Joint Director(Lands), DDA;
(v) Letter dated 05/06/2000, addressed to Vice-Chairman, DDA; &
(vi) Letter dated 26/03/2001, addressed to Vice-Chairman, DDA.
5. As per the Appellant’s claim, the aforesaid letters remained unresponded to.
6. Thereupon, vide his letter dated 10/07/2006, the Appellant had sought
information on 09 paras under the RTI Act, wherein, apart from requesting for
inspection of the concerned file, he had also made the following request:-
“I bought a land in 1974 but I do not have a virtual possession
of the land which was acquired by the DDA. Till now, I have
received no compensation. Till now, I have sent several applications
and reminders but no satisfactory response was given. I have
attached a bunch of applications with this one. Heart patient and
senior citizen.”
The Appellant had sought daily progress in regard to the
applications/letters/petitions sent by him to the DDA authorities as enumerated in
para __ above.
7. During the hearing, Shri Gill, Director(RL), would make the following
submissions to buttress the point that due diligence was exercised by the
concerned officers of DDA in dealing with the matter in hand. His submissions
can be summarised as follows:-
(i) The RTI application dated 10/07/2006 was received by
Director(Housing);
(ii) As he was not dealing with the matter, he transferred it to Director
(Residential Lands), vide letter dated 21/07/2006;
(iii) As no recommendation had been received from Land and Building
Department of NCT of Delhi, Director(RL) referred the matter to the
said Deptt., vide letter dated 02/08/2006, with a copy thereof to the
Appellant.
362 SubhashChandraVsDDA 12 08 15 4
(iv) The Land and Building Department responded to it vide letter dated
30/08/2006, stating that the file for allotment of alternative plot to
the evictees of clearance operation during emergency period had
been sent to DDA on 21/03/1988;
(v) Thereupon, Director(RL) referred the matter to Deputy Director
(Lands-LM), DDA, vide letter dated 29/09/2006;
(vi) Thereupon, Deputy Director(Lands)/LM, wrote to the Appellant vide
his letter dated 23/10/2006 offering the inspection of the relevant
file;
(vii) The Appellant, however, did not avail of inspection.
8. Besides, it is also his submission that while the matter was pending with
Deputy Director(Lands-LM), side by side, the Appellant also filed first appeal
before the Appellate Authority. This was disposed of by the Appellate Authority
vide order dated 03/11/2006 wherein, inter alia, it was stated as follows:-
“This case is of 1998 and being an old record, it is very
difficult to locate the same.”
9. Dissatisfied with the order of the first Appellate Authority, the Appellant
had filed second Appeal which was decided by this Commission vide its decision
dated 16/07/2007, as mentioned herein above.
10. The question before this Commission is whether compensation of
Rs.50,000/- is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case or not.
The infirmities pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court in the CIC’s decision
primarily concern non-mention of the section of the RTI Act under which the
compensation was awarded and the legal justification thereof in the scheme of the
RTI Act.
11. During the hearing, Shri Dev Jyoti Jayapuriar would make the following
submissions:-
(i) that compensation was rightly awarded to the Appellant under
section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act and that Appellant is not responsible
for non-mention of this provision in the order passed by CIC;
(ii) that compensation has been rightly awarded to the Appellant as,
even ignoring the plethora of applications/petitions filed by the
Appellant, to various DDA authorities, and even reckoning the time
from the date of the filing of the RTI application, i.e., 10/07/2006,
the first communication received by the Appellant was on
23/10/2006, i.e., after a gap of about 104 days. During this period,
362 SubhashChandraVsDDA 12 08 15 5the Appellant suffered loss and detriment as provided under section
19(8)(b) of the RTI Act;
(iii) that the Appellant has been petitioning various DDA authorities for
allotting him alternative plot since 1999 but no definitive response,
one way or the other, was given to him, by any officer of the DDA,
including the highest ranking officer, i.e., Vice-Chairman. He was,
thus, kept in limbo for all these years and, naturally, this caused him
immense mental torture, rendering him eligible for award of
compensation;
(iv) that it is, no doubt, true that he received the letter dated 23/10/2006
of the Deputy Director(Lands/LM) wherein offer of inspection was
made but when he visited DDA, he was badly treated and inspection
was not allowed;
12. In short, Shri Jaipuriar has forcefully argued that the decision dated
16/07/2007 of this Commission is sound in law and calls for no interference.
13. As the hearing remained inconclusive, the matter was adjourned to
27/08/2009 at 16.00 hrs.
14. As scheduled, the hearing was resumed on 27.8.2009. The following are
present :-
DDA (i) Shri D. Sarkar, Director (LM); (ii) Shri K.K. Sharma, Dy. Director (Lands); (iii) Shri B.M. Sareen, Dy Director (LA) (Residential); (iv) Shri S.S. Gill, Director (RL). Appellant (i) Shri Subhash Chander (ii) Shri Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar
15. It is the submission of Shri Gill that the compensation was erroneously
awarded to the appellant by this Commission. His principal argument is that the
appellant has not been able to establish any legal claim on the plot of land
purported to have been acquired. Besides, the queries raised by the appellant were
responded to DDA officers from time to time and, therefore, it will be wrong to
hold that any detriment was caused to him, justifying award of compensation.
DECISION
16. I have heard the parties. I have also given a deep though to the matter. In
my view, some detriment appears to have been caused to the appellant but
362 SubhashChandraVsDDA 12 08 15 6
responsibility for it can not be latched on any individual officer of DDA. In fact,
the role of Shri S.P. Bhardwaj, Dy. Director, (Land) has been commended by this
Commission in its decision dated 16.7.2007, for tracing out the relevant file.
However, the fact remains that the appellant had to undergo a lot of mental torture
and uncertainty in this matter. Besides, there was also some delay in responding
to his RTI application. Hence, considering the totality of circumstances, the
Commission feels that it would be in the interest of justice to pay compensation to
the Appellant u/s 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act but he amount thereof needs to be
caliberated. We reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.
30,000/-. This amount shall be paid by DDA to the appellant by cheque or draft in
two weeks time and the Commission will be informed accordingly.
17. The order of the Commission will be implemented by Shri S.S. Gill,
Director (RL).
18. The matter stands closed at the Commission’s end.
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 Subhash Chandra
Director (Lands),
DDA, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi-110023
2. Shri S.S. Gill
Director (RL),
DDA, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi-110023
3. Shri B.M. Sareen
Dy. Director (LA) (Residential),
DDA, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi-110023
4. Shri Subhash Chandra
E-150, Greater Kailash, New Delhi