CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00302 dated 27.12’07
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18
Appellant: Shri Jarnail Singh,
Respondent: Registrar, Coop. Societies, GNCT, Delhi.
Facts
By an application of 10-11-2006 Shri Jarnail Singh of Pitampura, New Delhi applied to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) as follows:
“As per the DDA order No. F-23(23)81/Bldg. Dy. 6616 dated 9.3.92, sealing and demolition orders 4 March, 1992 by Director P.C. Jain, DDA Bldg. For LIG 24 stilt flats in parking zone of MIG-II. Please
provide me action taken report for inspection.”
In his response of 8-12-2006 Shri G.K. Singh, Asstt. Registrar (NW) SPIO has sent the following response:
“Shri Jarnail Singh applicant requested action taken report in reference DDA order No.23(23)81/Bldg Dy. No. 616 dated 9.3.92 in respect of Sealing & demolition order issued by Director P.C.Jain, DDA Building for LIG 2 stilt flats in parking zone of MIG-II. This letter is not available on the file. However, correspondence made in the file in respect of demolition unauthorized construction. The same can be inspected and obtained the copy of the same. Copy can be obtained from the Asstt. Registrar DRI/RTI after
depositing the requisite fees. However, the applicant can inspect the file as desired by him.”
Not satisfied with this response appellant Shri Jarnail Singh made his first
appeal before Addl. Registrar on 18-12-2006 wherein he specified that action
taken copy may be obtained from the Ghalib Memorial C.G.H.S. Pitampura, Delhi
office.
In his second appeal before us dated 22-12-06 Shri Jarnail Singh refers to first appeal before Addl. Registrar dated 14-12-06 at 3.00 p.m. attended by his daughter Ms. Gursharan Kaur to which he had not received a reply. His request, therefore, was as follows:
“Now my request is for justice as per my membership HIG flat in the approved list of members RCS & DDA. Society did not give G.F. flats on medical grounds please. According to DUAC Ground floor
is on the stilts. All blocks were to be constructed on stilts. Culprits allotted me illegal construction in Parking Zone, when the M.C., RCS, DDA allotted flats to non-members against the resigned members using their original membership numbers unlawfully. Under the above circumstances, you are requested to help me for
getting justice i.e. HIG flat which I had booked on becoming member while I am without proper flat after 30 years membership. They had allotted me illegal construction with the cheating intention. Concerned authorities all hidden information about wrong allotment and never took action on my representations. Matter with RCS.”
In response to the appeal notice Asstt. Registrar in his letter of 2.4.’07 had stated as follows:
“In this connection Shri Jarnail Singh was intimated that the letter is not available in the file. However, some correspondence made in the file in respect of demolition of unauthorized construction is available which can be inspected by the applicant. The applicant was also intimated that she can inspect any file including the ones she has mentioned in her application.
As regards his grievances that he has not been allotted HIG flats in the society in spite of bonafide membership No.39 and he deserved a HIG flat. In this connection it stated that Shri K. Mahesh, the then D.RCS was appointed as enquiry officer for investigating the matter. The said report has been submitted by Shri K. Mahesh vide letter No.118 dated 28-7-06. The enquiry officer concluded that:-
`On the basis of records produced and submissions made by both the sides cumulatively and collectively it is abundantly clear that it was very much in the knowledge of the complainant that he was allotted an MIG-II flats and the possession of MIG-II was handed over to him on 1-10-89 which the complainant accepted it and has since been physically occupying this flat. The question of any wrong allotment of MIG-II flat instead of HIG flat does not arise and any such claim in this regard is baseless and self-created on the basis of records produced. As the plans and designs of construction of flat No.199 was already approved by DDA, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission and the MCD and later on the basis of reports submitted by Shri C.R. Kashyap, Asstt. Registrar (E) and the society Architect M/s Cambow Associates, I have firm reasons
to believe that the poor living conditions as described by the complainant have arisen due to ill maintenance and illegal encroachments by the occupant of the house over a period of time. In fact such encroachments are not only by the complainant, but also by other flat owners. It is not for me, but for the authorities to
take note of the same and initiate appropriate action in this regard”
The report submitted by enquiry officer has been accepted by the RCS / Competent Authority. The copy of the report has already been sent to Shri Jarnail Singh for his comments. Moreover, Shri C.P.Kashyap, AR (E) was directed to inspect the premises of the society along with architect and President/Secretary of the society vide letter No. 1508 dated 15.9.06 (copy enclosed). Shri Kashyap in his report concluded that flat No. 199 allotted to Shri Jarnail Singh was poorly maintained by the occupant Shri Jarnail Singh no white wash was done for years and the draining system was found to be chocked due to non clearness of same”
A copy of the report was enclosed. The appeal was heard on 9-4-2007. The following are present:
Appellant:
Shri Jarnail Singh
Ms. Gursharan Kaur, assisting appellant
Respondents:
Shri G.K. Singh, Asstt. Registrar (NW)
Shri D.D. Sharma, Asstt. Registrar (NW)
Shri Neeraj Kumar was present as observer. Ms. Gursharan Kaur clarified with reference to the hearing of 14-12-06 before the appellate authority that this was only on the question of seeking advice of the Department about the procedure for making a first appeal, which was subsequently moved on 18-12-2006. An order has been passed by Shri Mohan Lal, Addl. Registrar on 28-12-2006, copy of which has been taken on record. Shri Mohan Lal, Addl. Registrar, and Appellate Authority has as per this order directed as follows:
“On the basis of their submissions it appears that the reply of the SPIO is specific and the grievance of the appellant can better be solved by the SPIO providing facility of inspection of the file up to 15-1-2007 to the appellant. SPIO agreed to that and if on that basis the appellant needs/requires copy of any paper available in the office of the SPIO the SPIO will provide that to him on his proper application. Decided accordingly.
While noting the proceedings Smt. Gursharan Kaur mentioned that “It is requested that kindly provide this order and action taken report from society management as earlier order of Shri V.K. Bansal, AR (NW) dated 27-1-06 letter No. F.47/163/Coop/GH/NW/249 Letter to President regarding inspection of records of the society till date not provide for inspection. It is humble request kindly provide letter and action taken report from society.
As no such order dated 27-1-06 is there on this file, this order issues with the direction to the SPIO as decided above.”
It was clarified to both the parties that allotment of HIG flats and the quality of up-keep of the flat at present occupied by appellant, which is the subject of inquiry referred to by Asstt. Registrar are not the concern of this Commission which is concerning with ensuring that information sought in this case must be
provided, if permissible under the RTI Act 2005.
DECISION NOTICE:
The key issue before us, therefore, is the question of inspection of record with regard to action taken on the directions of DDA. Asstt. Registrar and PIO Shri G.K. Singh has held that the original directions from DDA are not on their file but the file may be inspected. Nonetheless, Ms. Gursharan Kaur representing appellant Sh Jarnail Singh has argued that whereas promises have been made, no opportunity has actually been given to her for inspection of record nor has the record from the Society been obtained for inspection.
Since, the question pertains to a particular direction from the DDA which in the view of appellant had not been complied with by the office of RCS the most obvious course would have been to obtain a copy of the directions of the DDA referred to by appellant and then determine whether any follow up was required
to be taken by the office of Registrar or by the Cooperative Societies under its direction. Because of the failure in this initial stage a good deal of inconvenience has been caused to appellant.
It is possible that the Society is not a public authority as defined u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. However, because the information is available to the Registrar under the Delhi cooperative Societies Act, such information as is sought by Shri Jarnail Singh will be accessible to him u/s 2 (f) and 2 (j). Because this was not arranged in response to the first appeal despite first Appellate Authority having recognized this matter, these records will now be obtained by the Office of Registrar for the inspection of appellant. Now, therefore, Asstt. Registrar and PIO in the Office of RCS is directed to obtain copies of the record from the Ghalib Memorial C.G.H.S. Society and arrange an inspection by appellant and her representative on 16-4-2007 in the office of RCS at 10.00 a.m. when a representative of this Commission will also be present to ensure that such records as are held by the Society and the department with regard to the specific directions issued by DDA referred to by appellant are made available and copies of documents identified by him provided to appellant Sh Jarnail Singh or his authorized representative.
Note: It is possible that Society is not a public authority under the declaration of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Because of that such information as is sought by Shri Jarnail Singh will be accessible to him u/s 2 (f) and 2 (j). Because this was not arranged in response to the first appeal despite first Appellate Authority having recognized this matter, these records will now be obtained by the Office of Registrar for the inspection of appellant.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
9-4-2007
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.
(L.C.Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
9-4-2007
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00302 dated 27.12’07
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18
Appellant: Shri Jarnail Singh,
Respondent: Registrar, Coop. Societies, GNCT, Delhi.
Facts
By an application of 10-11-2006 Shri Jarnail Singh of Pitampura, New Delhi applied to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) as follows:
“As per the DDA order No. F-23(23)81/Bldg. Dy. 6616 dated 9.3.92, sealing and demolition orders 4 March, 1992 by Director P.C. Jain, DDA Bldg. For LIG 24 stilt flats in parking zone of MIG-II. Please
provide me action taken report for inspection.”
In his response of 8-12-2006 Shri G.K. Singh, Asstt. Registrar (NW) SPIO has sent the following response:
“Shri Jarnail Singh applicant requested action taken report in reference DDA order No.23(23)81/Bldg Dy. No. 616 dated 9.3.92 in respect of Sealing & demolition order issued by Director P.C.Jain, DDA Building for LIG 2 stilt flats in parking zone of MIG-II. This letter is not available on the file. However, correspondence made in the file in respect of demolition unauthorized construction. The same can be inspected and obtained the copy of the same. Copy can be obtained from the Asstt. Registrar DRI/RTI after
depositing the requisite fees. However, the applicant can inspect the file as desired by him.”
Not satisfied with this response appellant Shri Jarnail Singh made his first
appeal before Addl. Registrar on 18-12-2006 wherein he specified that action
taken copy may be obtained from the Ghalib Memorial C.G.H.S. Pitampura, Delhi
office.
In his second appeal before us dated 22-12-06 Shri Jarnail Singh refers to first appeal before Addl. Registrar dated 14-12-06 at 3.00 p.m. attended by his daughter Ms. Gursharan Kaur to which he had not received a reply. His request, therefore, was as follows:
“Now my request is for justice as per my membership HIG flat in the approved list of members RCS & DDA. Society did not give G.F. flats on medical grounds please. According to DUAC Ground floor
is on the stilts. All blocks were to be constructed on stilts. Culprits allotted me illegal construction in Parking Zone, when the M.C., RCS, DDA allotted flats to non-members against the resigned members using their original membership numbers unlawfully. Under the above circumstances, you are requested to help me for
getting justice i.e. HIG flat which I had booked on becoming member while I am without proper flat after 30 years membership. They had allotted me illegal construction with the cheating intention. Concerned authorities all hidden information about wrong allotment and never took action on my representations. Matter with RCS.”
In response to the appeal notice Asstt. Registrar in his letter of 2.4.’07 had stated as follows:
“In this connection Shri Jarnail Singh was intimated that the letter is not available in the file. However, some correspondence made in the file in respect of demolition of unauthorized construction is available which can be inspected by the applicant. The applicant was also intimated that she can inspect any file including the ones she has mentioned in her application.
As regards his grievances that he has not been allotted HIG flats in the society in spite of bonafide membership No.39 and he deserved a HIG flat. In this connection it stated that Shri K. Mahesh, the then D.RCS was appointed as enquiry officer for investigating the matter. The said report has been submitted by Shri K. Mahesh vide letter No.118 dated 28-7-06. The enquiry officer concluded that:-
`On the basis of records produced and submissions made by both the sides cumulatively and collectively it is abundantly clear that it was very much in the knowledge of the complainant that he was allotted an MIG-II flats and the possession of MIG-II was handed over to him on 1-10-89 which the complainant accepted it and has since been physically occupying this flat. The question of any wrong allotment of MIG-II flat instead of HIG flat does not arise and any such claim in this regard is baseless and self-created on the basis of records produced. As the plans and designs of construction of flat No.199 was already approved by DDA, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission and the MCD and later on the basis of reports submitted by Shri C.R. Kashyap, Asstt. Registrar (E) and the society Architect M/s Cambow Associates, I have firm reasons
to believe that the poor living conditions as described by the complainant have arisen due to ill maintenance and illegal encroachments by the occupant of the house over a period of time. In fact such encroachments are not only by the complainant, but also by other flat owners. It is not for me, but for the authorities to
take note of the same and initiate appropriate action in this regard”
The report submitted by enquiry officer has been accepted by the RCS / Competent Authority. The copy of the report has already been sent to Shri Jarnail Singh for his comments. Moreover, Shri C.P.Kashyap, AR (E) was directed to inspect the premises of the society along with architect and President/Secretary of the society vide letter No. 1508 dated 15.9.06 (copy enclosed). Shri Kashyap in his report concluded that flat No. 199 allotted to Shri Jarnail Singh was poorly maintained by the occupant Shri Jarnail Singh no white wash was done for years and the draining system was found to be chocked due to non clearness of same”
A copy of the report was enclosed. The appeal was heard on 9-4-2007. The following are present:
Appellant:
Shri Jarnail Singh
Ms. Gursharan Kaur, assisting appellant
Respondents:
Shri G.K. Singh, Asstt. Registrar (NW)
Shri D.D. Sharma, Asstt. Registrar (NW)
Shri Neeraj Kumar was present as observer. Ms. Gursharan Kaur clarified with reference to the hearing of 14-12-06 before the appellate authority that this was only on the question of seeking advice of the Department about the procedure for making a first appeal, which was subsequently moved on 18-12-2006. An order has been passed by Shri Mohan Lal, Addl. Registrar on 28-12-2006, copy of which has been taken on record. Shri Mohan Lal, Addl. Registrar, and Appellate Authority has as per this order directed as follows:
“On the basis of their submissions it appears that the reply of the SPIO is specific and the grievance of the appellant can better be solved by the SPIO providing facility of inspection of the file up to 15-1-2007 to the appellant. SPIO agreed to that and if on that basis the appellant needs/requires copy of any paper available in the office of the SPIO the SPIO will provide that to him on his proper application. Decided accordingly.
While noting the proceedings Smt. Gursharan Kaur mentioned that “It is requested that kindly provide this order and action taken report from society management as earlier order of Shri V.K. Bansal, AR (NW) dated 27-1-06 letter No. F.47/163/Coop/GH/NW/249 Letter to President regarding inspection of records of the society till date not provide for inspection. It is humble request kindly provide letter and action taken report from society.
As no such order dated 27-1-06 is there on this file, this order issues with the direction to the SPIO as decided above.”
It was clarified to both the parties that allotment of HIG flats and the quality of up-keep of the flat at present occupied by appellant, which is the subject of inquiry referred to by Asstt. Registrar are not the concern of this Commission which is concerning with ensuring that information sought in this case must be
provided, if permissible under the RTI Act 2005.
DECISION NOTICE:
The key issue before us, therefore, is the question of inspection of record with regard to action taken on the directions of DDA. Asstt. Registrar and PIO Shri G.K. Singh has held that the original directions from DDA are not on their file but the file may be inspected. Nonetheless, Ms. Gursharan Kaur representing appellant Sh Jarnail Singh has argued that whereas promises have been made, no opportunity has actually been given to her for inspection of record nor has the record from the Society been obtained for inspection.
Since, the question pertains to a particular direction from the DDA which in the view of appellant had not been complied with by the office of RCS the most obvious course would have been to obtain a copy of the directions of the DDA referred to by appellant and then determine whether any follow up was required
to be taken by the office of Registrar or by the Cooperative Societies under its direction. Because of the failure in this initial stage a good deal of inconvenience has been caused to appellant.
It is possible that the Society is not a public authority as defined u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. However, because the information is available to the Registrar under the Delhi cooperative Societies Act, such information as is sought by Shri Jarnail Singh will be accessible to him u/s 2 (f) and 2 (j). Because this was not arranged in response to the first appeal despite first Appellate Authority having recognized this matter, these records will now be obtained by the Office of Registrar for the inspection of appellant. Now, therefore, Asstt. Registrar and PIO in the Office of RCS is directed to obtain copies of the record from the Ghalib Memorial C.G.H.S. Society and arrange an inspection by appellant and her representative on 16-4-2007 in the office of RCS at 10.00 a.m. when a representative of this Commission will also be present to ensure that such records as are held by the Society and the department with regard to the specific directions issued by DDA referred to by appellant are made available and copies of documents identified by him provided to appellant Sh Jarnail Singh or his authorized representative.
Note: It is possible that Society is not a public authority under the declaration of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Because of that such information as is sought by Shri Jarnail Singh will be accessible to him u/s 2 (f) and 2 (j). Because this was not arranged in response to the first appeal despite first Appellate Authority having recognized this matter, these records will now be obtained by the Office of Registrar for the inspection of appellant.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
9-4-2007
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.
(L.C.Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
9-4-2007
No comments:
Post a Comment