(Right to Information Act – Section 18)

Complaint No.: CIC/WB/C/2006/00076
Dated: 07/05/’06

Name of Appellant: Ms Geeta Dewan Verma

Name of Public Authority: Delhi Development Authority (DDA)


Complainant Ms Gita Dewan Verma applied Sh. DP Dwivedi CPIO and Director Vigilance, DDA on 3/4/’06, seeking information on action taken on a letter written on 7/7/’06 to Vice Chairman DDA, Chairman DDA and Secretary MoUD to which she had received a response from the Central Vigilance Commission on 6/9/’04, indicating that her letter had been forwarded to CVO DDA for necessary action. The letter, according to the complaint made before us, referred to deaths, including those of children, in Bawana, relocation settlement for oustees from Yamuna Pushta and Lalkhet. In reply to her request, Ms Dewan received a letter dated 26/4/’06 from CPIO and Director Vigilance Shri DP Dwivedi indicating that her application had been sent to Commissioner (Planning) on 7/1/’04 for investigation and necessary action. Claiming urgency in the matter as lives had been lost, applicant Ms Verma moved a complaint before this Commission stating non-compliance with Commission’s directions to DDA in Sarbajit Roy vs. DDA on 25/2/’06.

Complainant Ms Gita Dewan Verma is present at the hearing on 4/8/’06 together with Sh SP Padhy, Director (LM) DDA, PM Parate (Director (Planning) DDA and Ms Neemo Dhar (PR&PG). The respondents argue that the information sought by complainant was not clear, hence the confusion on jurisdiction. This could have been clarified at the level of first Appeal to which recourse, in their view should have been taken first.

Decision Notice

Because there are implications in the complaint concerning danger to human life, even though the threat was not immediate, it was appropriate to bring the matter in complaint to the Commission. We also find that in his response CPIO has indeed not adhered to the ruling of this Commission in Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC Sarabjit Roy vs. DDA, which concerned this very public authority. We had ruled as follows:

“The DDA is a single public authority. Since this is a matter concerning adjustments within the same public authority Sec 6(3) cannot apply. Accordingly the CPIO Ms. Neemo Dhar, who had received the request from the complainant, was, as per section 7(1) of the Act, under obligation to seek information from her colleague and provide it to the complainant. Her colleague who was to provide the information as per Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, would become deemed CPIO and expected to provide Ms. Dhar the information sought by the Complainant.”

We, therefore, direct as follows:

  1. The information sought by appellant Ms Gita Dewan Verma regarding present status of the action taken on the transfer of the case of Bawana by the CVC to the DDA be provided to her within fifteen working days.

  2. The CPIO Shri Dwivedi will show cause within fifteen working days why penalty u/s 20(1) not be imposed upon him for having ignored the directions of this Commission cited above and avoided obtaining the information sought by complainant Ms. Verma within the permissible time.

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 be CPIO of this Commission.

(L.C. Singhi)