2ndAdjunct to Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00138 & to 1stAdjunct to Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00071 dated 30-12-2006

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Complainant: Ms Gita Dewan Verma.


Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corporation, (DTTDC)
Delhi Development Authority (DDA)


In our Decision of 19.10.2007 we had directed as follows:

“With regard to DDA, the question is very simple i.e. whether the construction in the Garden of the Five Senses (Said-ul-Ajaib) has been cleared by them after the TC whose decision is quoted above recommended that it did not approve the change of land use to develop this project. Director (Plg.) Shri Uttarwar will obtain the requisite information from the concerned PIO/ Wing of the DDA and supply the same to appellant within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.

With regard to information pending from the DTTDC Shri Suman Sharma will now supply the full information sought by Ms. Gita Dewan Verma appellant in her five questions including the question No.4 and 5 within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. The request that this be replied to in the usual mandated time limit cannot be agreed to, since already there has been heavy delay in responding to the original transfer to the DTTDC by the DDA and transfer back to the DDA in blatant transgression of the time lime mandated u/s 7(1) and 6(3).

As is clear from the submission of Shri Suman Sharma of 10-9-07 the application of Ms. Gita Dewan Verma was received in the DTTDC on 21-2-07 However, a response even though not substantive was only sent on 26-4-07. Shri Suman Sharma SPIO has rendered himself liable for penalty from 21-3-07 to 26-4-07 @ Rs. 250/- per day amounting to Rs. 9,000/-. He will, therefore, show cause either in writing by 7th November, 07 or through personal appearance on 12th November 2007 at 10.00 as to why a penalty of Rs. 9000/- should not be imposed upon him.

In conclusion we find that the kind of information sought in this case by Ms. Gita Dewan Verma is the kind of information that is of general public interest. The DTTDC would have been well advised for uploading this information on their website or published it u/s4

(1) (b). This has not been done. DTTDC will, therefore, examine its process of suo-moto disclosures as mandated u/s 4 (2) and ensure that all the information required to be uploaded u/s 4 (1) (b) is uploaded within 30 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. If necessary the assistance of NIC can be taken for this purpose to which a copy of his decision notice is endorsed.”

To this we have received response of 2.11.07 from Shri P.S. Uttarwar Director (Plg) U.C. stating that the necessary documents have been collected from JD (MP)/PIO as directed and the same forwarded to Complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma. These documents include the minutes of the Technical Committee meeting of 18.1.94 as well as copies of file noting stamped “For office use only”, in which the land in question has been variously referred to by the names “Said-ul-jaib” and “Said-ul-Zab”1. We also received a detailed written response from Shri Suman Sharma SPIO responding to the show cause, in which he has submitted as follows :

“As soon as Delhi Tourism has taken the confirmation of RTI fee., only within two days desired information supplied to Ms Gita Dewan Verma. There is no mens rea for supplying of the information to applicant only mandatory requirement i.e. RTI application fee as per RTI Act, 2005 asked for.”

The matter came up for hearing as scheduled on 12,.11.07. Only appellant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma is present. While agreeing with that our order had been complied with she submitted that the information now provided by DTTDC was incomplete and she also needed further clarifications as follows:

  1. “On Qn No. 3 & Qn. No. 4(ii) I have not been given any information, PIO had transferred Qn. No. 4(ii) to DDA PIO, who returned the transfer.
  2. On Qn. No. 4 (Rest) & Qn. No. 5 I have not got complete/ actionable information. PIO gave agenda/ decisions of 7 meetings by letter dated 24/25-10-07, but has not given on request dated 29.10.07.
    1. Date of the meetings at which the decisions given were confirmed.
    2. Confirmation that the issue was not considered at any other meeting.
    3. List of attendees (Required also since Board details are not published.
  3. Qn. No. 1& 2 were covered by papers given at hearing. The notings given show that my application was referred to Project Consultant, presumably under u/s 2(f). I have not been given the correspondence relating to referral of my application to a private party.”

Ms. Gita Dewan Verma has also submitted that on the face of information now received from the DDA it appears that certain information, which she had asked in her original application, the existence of which had been denied, is extant and the information supplied therefore, during the processing of her application was incomplete.

On the question of penalty we agree that the processing of this entire case has been confusing and the delay through extended correspondence for supplying the information sought by appellant, Ms. Verma by the DTTDA cannot be laid on the table only of SPIO Shri Suman Sharma. We, therefore, direct as follows:

  1. While cautioning the PIO to systemize the processing of RTI applications, we hold that no penalty will lie in the present case.
  2. Insofar as the clarifications sought by Complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma are concerned, the PIO Shri Suman Sharma will provide the same to appellant within 15 working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice, under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission.
  3. On the basis of new information received by complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma from the response of Sh PS Uttarwar, Director(Plg) DDA no purpose would be served by reopening the present case that now stands concluded. Appellant is, therefore, advised to move a fresh application u/s

18(1)(e) before us indicating in what manner the information provided to her is “incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act”.

With these directions the remaining two appeals on Said ul-Ajaib, now stand disposed of. Announced in the hearing.

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 K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar

  • 1. “jaib” is Urdu for pocket, and “zab” has no meaning, except that ‘azab’ is Urdu for disaster