Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00018 dated 2.1.2008

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18

Complainant - Ms. Gita Dewan Verma

Respondent - Ministry of Urban Development.


By an RTI complaint of 1.1.08 before this Commission Ms. Gita Dewan Verma, of Vasant Kunj, New Delhi has pleaded on the basis of Rules required to be, but not being followed in finalization of Govt. of India proposals concerning Appu Ghar etc. that “in view of the foregoing and because power to make Rules under DD Act vests in GOI, I request direction to MoUD Delhi Division to publish on its website the complete and correct Rules / procedures for S.11(A)(2) before issuance of any further notices or notification thereunder”

We have subsequently received an application of 18.1.08 from Er Sarbajit Roy of Defence Colony, New Delhi and on 20.2.2008 from Ms. Poonam Prakash requesting that they may be impleaded in this complaint. These requests for impleadment, however, challenge the authenticity of information provided and seek further disclosure whereas the plea of complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma is simply a plea for directions to Ministry of Urban Development to comply with the requirements of sec. 4(1) (b), (c) & (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. We have received a further submission of 14.2.08 from complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma emphasizing this in praying as follows:

“I request my prayer in Complaint dated1.1.2008 be allowed and also that Delhi Division be directed to, for each of its Notification dated 7.2.08:

  1. publish Corrigenda with all relevant facts for compliance of Sec. 4(1)( c) and
  2. Provide me under Sec.4 (1) (d) the reasons for rejections of my submissions.”

Further impleadment at this stage will only prolong a decision in a case which to our mind is forthright and eminently disposable, and which has been instituted with a specific plea of urgency.


Sec. 4(1) sub-section (b) (vii), which reads as follows, needs little clarification:

"Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act, the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof1"

The requirement of Sec.11 (A) (3) of the DDA Act brings this squarely within this mandated requirement. In addition, there can be little doubt that announcing decisions to make modification to the master plan with regard to a public facility like Appu Ghar will affect the public. This, therefore, falls squarely under the requirements of sec. 4(1) sub-section (c) which reads as follows:

“Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;"

This is thus clearly a complaint demanding no more than compliance with the law. The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi will, therefore, ensure full compliance with the same, which, if not complied with already, has brought MoUD in violation of the requirements of sec. 4(1) (b), mandating as it does that the information be published “within 120 days from the enactment of this Act,” This was therefore required to have been a continuing process since ending October 2005. This exercise will now therefore be completed within twenty working days of the issue of this Decision Notice under intimation to Shri PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.

Once this is done, any complaints / appeals that Er. Sarbajit Roy and Ms.

Poonam Prakash may have, can be moved before us u/s 18(1) or sec. 19(3).

The complaint is disposed of with the above direction. Announced.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief 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.

(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar

  • 1. Emphasis ours