Central Information Commission

*****

Background:

Shri Anil Kumar Aatwal of New Delhi, had filed an application with the PIO, Delhi Development Authority, on 10 October 2006 for seeking the following:

1. copy of the list of 100 beneficiaries mentioned in DDA letter No.1300/JI/GA/73 dated 11 July 1993;
2. information about ‘consideration’ by Delhi Administration and DDA mentioned in DDA letter No. 15C38/64-I&B dated 12/17 January 1978;
3. List received for purposes of draw from Airports Authority or any other department in view of reference to limited role of draw on basis of AAI list in DDA letter No.F.1(15)2005/L&B(R)DDA/3931 dated 12.04.2005;
4. Copies of letters issued in respect of Tata Nagar, Nangal Dairy at the time of land acquisition in 1972 during 1973-1994-1978 or later;
5. Information/file inspection of any court case on Nangal Dairy Tata Nagar resettlement;
6. Copies of information about EWS schemes proposed near IGI Airport.

2. The Deputy Director & PIO, Shri Kartar Singh, on 17 October 2006 forwarded his RTI application to five different officers for furnishing information to the Applicant concerned. Shri B.S. Jaglan, OSD (FL) DDA wrote a letter to the Complainant on 7 November 2006 that only serial No.3 of the application pertained to his office and that the said information was available at the DDA website. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, Shri Anil Kumar Aatwal approached the Central Information Commission with a complaint on 16 November 2006.
3. The case was heard on 21 February 2007.
4. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter.
5. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Director, represented the Respondents.
6. The Appellant, Shri Anil Kumar Aatwal, was present in person along with Ms. Gita Dewan Verma and Shri Anil Kumar.

Decision:

7. The Commission heard both the sides. The Applicant stated that copies of his applications were forwarded to five PIOs of which one of them, who was present at the hearing, replied to the Appellant that the concerned information was on the DDA website. However, he had brought a complete list of the information asked for at the time of the hearing. The Commission told the Respondent that the Appellant should have been supplied the information in the format asked for and that this should be noted for future. Since he had brought the complete list with him, the Commission directed that this should be handed over to the Appellant.
8. As for the other transferees, the Appellant had received no response whatsoever from Deputy Director (SEZ), South East Zone, while the Deputy Director (NL-1) referred the Appellant to various DDA authorities. Of these one, that is, Director, Planning, Dwarka, got back to the Appellant and also wrote back to Deputy Director, NL-I pointing out the PIO who was the actual custodian of the information. Two other parties, to which the application was transferred, did not seem to be concerned with the case.
9. The Commission felt that the case only highlighted the need for strengthening the RTI structure within the DDA. Here is obviously a case where when an Applicant’s request for information was treated causally by transferring it here and there. It is, therefore, advised that the DDA must place a responsible senior official who could be incharge of ensuring that the applications filed with the DDA reached the proper PIO and those who were the custodians of information. This must be done as soon as possible and certainly by 20 April 2007. They should send a report of the action taken in the matter to the Commission directly. This is necessary to avoid inconvenience to the Appellants and also the confusion within the DDA itself.
10. As for the present application of the Appellant, the Respondents, that is, the DDA, must ensure that information is provided on all counts by the 27 March 2007 unless, of course, prohibited by any Section or Clause of the Act. In case, this is not done within the time given by the Commission, the Appellant should report back to the Commission within 10 days subsequent to it after which the Commission would hold a second hearing and review the matter.
11. The Commission ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

Sd/-

(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Assistant Registrar

Cc: