Adjunct to Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00099 dated 29.3.2006

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18 19

Appellant - Ms. Gita Dewan Verma

Respondent - Dy. Commissioner (SW), GNCT Delhi


By a decision of 11.6.2007 we had directed as follows:

“The Commission has decided to treat this application as a complaint petition u/s 18 of the said Act and hereby directs the PIO, LAC.O/o the Dy. Commissioner (South West), Kapashera, New Delhi to provide the information sought to applicant Ms. Gita Verma within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this decision.

The PIO is directed to appear personally before the Commission on 19.7.2007 at 5.00 p.m. and show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day from the date when the information became due to the date when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs.25, 000/- should not be imposed on him/her under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO may in the alternative submit his/her written submission on or before 13.7.2007.”

Accordingly, the matter was heard on 19.7.2007. The following are present:

  1. Ms. Gita Dewan Verma, Complainant
  2. Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Naib Tehsildar

Shri K.K. Dahiya PIO & ADM (SW) submitted that the information sought had been provided on 27.4.07. This information, which was on record at the time of passing the Decision of 11.6.07 was as follows:

“This is in reference to your application under Right to Information Act 2005 vide I.D. No. 286 dated 22.2.07. It is submitted that the information which you have requested has been obtained from Land Acquisition Branch of Distt. South West (Photo copies enclosed)/

This is also informed that the point concerning record of Planned Development of Delhi’ in Para (i) pertains to the DDA, for which that department is being requested to provide the necessary information.

This is forwarded to you for your kind information. If the reply is not found satisfactory, you may file an appeal before the DC (South West).”

Complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma has, on the other hand, argued that the information sought would be of the jurisdiction of the ADM (SW) and not DDA (Planning) and DDA (L&M) Departments, as per response received by complainant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma through a letter of 11.6.07 from Director (Planning) which states as follows:

“I am to inform you that copy of Notification mentioned has been collected from Land & Bldg., GNCT Delhi (copy enclosed), from the notification it appears that the land measuring 2 Bighas 06 Biswa in Village Masoodpur has been proposed to be acquired for planned Development of Mega Housing Scheme of DDA Sultangarhi, however, for more clarification your request for Para (1) is being transferred to Director (Land Management), DDA, A-Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.”

Therefore, in her letter of 3.7.07 Ms. Verma has argued as follows:

“I have not received any more clarification from DDA Dir. (LM). It is also not clear to me how L&B Dep’t. notification discloses the Sultangarhi purpose and, since DDA has relied on L&B Dep’t. reply, why ADM (SW) did not transfer also to L&B Dep’t.

As my application dated 4.6.07 apparently could not be placed on record before my Complaint was taken up for Decision, I request its consideration now for further directions for information in this case as well as for decision on my request about proactive disclosure in such cases.”

Under the circumstances this hearing is adjourned to 31.8.2007 at 5.00 P.M in which the following are directed to appear:

  1. Director (Planning), DDA
  2. Director (LM), DDA
  3. PIO, Land & Building Dep’t., GNCT of Delhi.

Land & Bldg. Dep’t. GNCT Delhi was one of the original parties in the complaint of 28.3.07 made before us. However, the original application of 22.2.07 was addressed only to PIO O/o DC (SW). The Land & Bldg. Department was also not a party to the decision on the complaint announced by us on 11.6.07. It is, therefore, uncertain whether the PIO L&B Dep’t. has any information on the background of the complaint. A copy of the original application together with that of the complaint before us will also be sent to PIO L&B Dep’t. A copy of the Decision of 11.6.07 may be given for information to the remaining parties on whom it has not been served.

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.

(PK Shreyaskar)
Jt. Registrar