Appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00864 dated 29.12.2006

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant - Shri Ajit Singh Malik

Respondent - Delhi Development Authority (DDA)


By an application of 10.3.06 Shri Ajit Singh Malik of Village Masudpur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi applied to Secretary to Lt. Governor, Delhi and Shri S.P. Padhi, Director (LM) DDA seeking the following information in reference to Sec 34A of the DD Act, 1957:

“Please intimate in Vasant Kunj including Mahipalpur-Mehrauli Zone –

  • Who has been appointed for making complaints for Arrest u/s 34-A
  • Information regarding complaint made u/s 34-A, if any.

The information is requested within 48 hours, because immediately on start of action as per Court’s order, propaganda has already started against the Bhagidhari, Court, Corporation and the Authority to divert attention from unauthorized acts by high status people.”

To this he received a response from Ms. Aparna Raghuram, Sr.R.O. (RTI) from DDA stating as follows:

“With reference to your application dt.20.3.06, on the above cited subject, I am to inform you that on your earlier application dt.26.2.05 this office has already intimated to you that subject matter of your application pertains to M.C.D. You are, therefore, again advised to contact that office to get the required information.”

Pleading that his original application had been submitted on 16.2.06 to the Lt. Governor’s Sectt., which was then forwarded by the PIO to DDA Office’s Vice Chairman through a letter of 20.2.06 and that he had received no intimation of any response to his application of 16.2.06, appellant appealed to the Secretary to Lt. Governor on 3.4.06 with the following prayer:

  1. “The information requested by the Appellant vide Application dated 16.2.2006 be furnished to him forthwith.
  2. By way of compensation for the delay in RTI reply, MCD and DDA be directed to refrain from any precipitate actions in name of general court orders till conflicts with area-specific pending matters have been resolved especially since the Authority’s Board for MPD 2021 (with both DDA Vice Chairman and MCD Commissioner as mentioned) has not granted mandatory hearing to the Appellant on these issues.”

Upon this he received an order from Shri G.S. Patnaik, Secretary to L.G. dated 25.4.06 that the matter pertained to the DDA and the first appeal, therefore, lay with the DDA and not with the Secretary, LG’s Sectt.

The appeal was heard on 26.11.2007.The following are present:


  1. Sh. Ajit Singh Malik
  2. Ms. Gita Dewan Verma - Authorized representative.


  1. Sh.O.P. Ahlawat, Dy. Director (LM) SW Zone.
  2. Ms. Aparna Raghuram, Sr.R.O. (RTI)

Although informed of the hearing through our notice of 1.10.2007, the PIO from M.C.D. is not present. In response to a specific question by us Ms. Aparna Raghuram has stated that no such officials regarding whom information has been sought by appellant Sh. Ajit Singh Malik have thus far been appointed in any of the areas under the direct control of D.D.A. However, she could not answer for the MCD areas which include the area in question in the present application. Ms. Gita Dewan Verma on the other hand has argued that the original application was submitted to Secretary to L.G. because action on sec.34-A of the D.D.A. Act 1957 is required to be taken by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi. The simple reply, therefore, was whether any such action had been taken or not taken, and if taken then by which Department, since evidently the D.D.A. has not taken any such action.


In light of the specific question asked which falls squarely within the purview of the office of Lt. Governor Delhi, the Secretary to L.G. is directed to inform us, with a copy to appellant, whether any officers have been appointed u/s 34-A of the D.D.A. Act in Vasant Kunj Area. He may submit his response within 15 working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice, with a copy to appellant Shri Ajit Singh Malik.

We also find that although Notice of hearing of the appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act 2005 was issued to the PIO (LM) MCD, he/she has neither cared to respond nor has he/she appeared in the hearing. While we take an adverse view of this lapse on the part of MCD, the PIO is also directed to inform appellant Shri Ajit Singh Malik within 15 working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice whether any officers have been appointed u/s 34-A of the D.D.A. Act in the Vasant Kunj area, serviced by MCD.

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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar