Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/00033
Dated: 22 January 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri V.M. Thareja
GG-111/30, Vikas Puri
New Delhi-110018
Name of the Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority
Background:
Shri V.M. Thareja of New Delhi filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Delhi Development Authority, on 31 July 2006, seeking
information regarding the distance criteria between the H.S. School (Oxford
Public School) Bodella Village and the Outer Ring Road as per the DDA scale and
whether the Tot-lot land mentioned in the blue print of Bodella Residential
Scheme was included in the Group Housing Scheme Plots. The PIO vide his
letter dated 20 September 2006 replied to the RTI-application. In the
meanwhile, the Appellant on not getting any reply within the stipulated period
of 30 days, filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 19 September
and thereafter approached the Central Information Commission with a Second
Appeal on 9 January 2007. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information
Commissioner, heard the matter on 17 May 2007.
2. During the above hearing, the Appellants stated that they wanted two
pieces of information: first the distance criteria between the Oxford Public
School, Village Bodella and the Outer Ring Road as per the DDA scale. The
Respondents stated that they had showed to the Appellants the plan of the
area. However, this distance was a part of the detailed plan which was not
available with them. Actually, the Appellant said that they had themselves
measured this distance (836 meters approximately). What the Appellants
wanted was an official confirmation of the fact. The Commission directed the
Respondents to measure this distance by scale on their map and confirm. The
second piece of information related to the Tot-lot land mentioned in the blue
print of the Bodella Residential Scheme in Group Housing plots. The
Commission directed the Respondents to make available to the Appellant the
information map showing the Tot-lot land in that Scheme. The Commission
further directed that the compliance of both these orders should be done by 15
May 2007.
3. Not satisfied with the information supplied by the PIO after the
Commission’s orders, the Appellant approached the Commission with a request
to hear the case again. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information
Commissioner, heard the matter on 7 May 2008.
4. The Commission heard both the sides in a case which had not only been
heard earlier but action also had been taken on a complaint of non-compliance
of the Commission’s orders by the Respondents. However, it was obvious that
the case was still not settled. The issue related to the measurement of a
distance between the Oxford School, Vikas Puri and the Outer Ring Road in the
first instance and the status of a Tot Lot area in the land allotted to a
Cooperative Group Housing Society. During the hearing, the Appellant stated
that in response to the Respondent’s letter, he had gone to the office to get
the information but was treated very shabbily and in fact was even threatened.
He stated that now he was even afraid of going there again. Under the
circumstances, the Commission directed the Respondents to provide the
technical expertise to the Appellant who would bring his own technical hand
and the two technical persons would sit down and reconcile the two different
pieces of data regarding the measurement of the distance as stated above.
5. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that in view of the behaviour of
the officials concerned, he was now very hesitant to go to the office again and
wanted the Respondents to call them on the site as per their convenience so
that this exercise could be carried on at the site itself. The Commission sees
no reason why this request of the Appellants should not be agreed to. (The
Appellant wanted their phone numbers to be included in the Order. These are
9818758484 & 9811399540). The Commission ordered that this exercise should
be completed by 5 June 2008.
6. The Commission also warned the Respondents that in case this complaint
of misbehaviour on the part of them was repeated, the Commission it would be
treated extremely severely and heavy penalties imposed upon the erring
officials. After all, it was often seen that the Government Servants who were
also called ‘Civil Servants’ were anything but civil and the Commission saw no
reason grounds to doubt what the Appellant had stated. It was incumbent on
the Public Authorities not only to disclose information but also to treat all RTI-
applicants with respect and consideration.
7. The Commission noted that as regards the status of the Tot-lot land in
the area allotted to the Cooperative Group Housing Society, the Appellant
stated that he merely wanted a confirmation from the Respondents that
whatever piece of land was allotted for the particular Group Housing Society
did or did not contain the Tot-lot land, and the reasons why this land had been
allotted after the finalization of the Group Housing Society Scheme. He has
sought information on two Group Housing Societies, namely, Engineers India
Group Housing Society and Gujranwala Cooperative Group Housing Society,
Bodhela, Vikaspuri.
8. During the hearing, the Respondents said that as far as the information
regarding the status of a Tot-lot land in the area allotted to Group Housing
Societies was concerned, it would take them time to collect the information
from the Department of Land and Architect Wing. The Commission accepted
the submission and granted them time upto 20 June 2008 to collect the
information and supply it to the Appellant.
9. The Appellant, however, approached the Commission again with a non-
compliance of the Commission’s orders, and the Commission decided to hold
another hearing in this case.
10. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the
matter on 12 January 2009.
11. Shri R.K. Jain, Director (Plg), represented the Respondents.
12. The Appellant, Shri V.M. Thareja, was represented by Shri G.L. Nagpaul
and Shri Devinder Singh.
Decision:
13. The Commission heard both the sides and found that part of the
information had been provided to the Appellant. According to the
Respondents, the part of information which could not be provided by them did
not pertain to their office but to the Building Department of the DDA who
approved the Cooperative Group Housing Layout Plan, and in this specific case,
Engineers India Group Housing Society and Gujranwala Cooperative Group
Housing Society, Bodhela, Vikaspuri.
14. The earlier Order of the Commission dated 29 May 2008 provided for the
Appellant to send a technical hand to the Respondent’s office and for the
Respondents to provide the technical expertise to the Appellant so that both
the technical experts could jointly look into the documents and get the correct
information. This has not been done so far.
15. The Appellant has desired that the area specifications of both the sites,
that is, Engineers India Group Housing Society and Gujranwala Cooperative
Group Housing Society, Bodhela, Vikaspuri should be mentioned in detail giving
length of each site.
16. Under the circumstances, the Commission now directs: (i) the
Respondents to clarify the information received from the Department
mentioned above so that the Appellant does not have to run from office to
office to get that information. It is only natural for a Section of that the same
office to get the information which is under the custody of another Section in
the same Department. This they should do by 17 February 2009; (ii) after this
date, the Appellants will get in touch with the Respondent’s office to fix up a
date when the two technical experts – one from the side of the Appellant and
the other from the Respondents ― to go over all the documents and to also
physically visit the site so that the correct information is provided to the
Appellant; and (iii) in case of a dispute, the Appellant, after having the
contradictory pieces of information, may approach the senior authorities in the
DDA for reconciliation of the difference.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri V.M. Thareja, GG-111/30, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
2. Shri Partho Dhar, Director (AP-I) & PIO, Delhi Development Authority, 4th
Floor, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
3. Shri A.K. Gupta, Addl. Commissioner (Planning) II & Appellate Authority,
Delhi Development Authority, 5th Floor, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-
110002
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC