Joint inspection of plot by the DDA and appellant
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had been issued a show cause notice to appear before the Central Information Commission (CIC) for personal hearing before imposition of penalty. During the show-cause hearing the respondent stated that in the RTI application the particular land in respect of which information was sought was not identified very clearly through plot number etc. The said plot was stated to be close to Gauri Shanker Mandir but the exact building was not shown in the layout plan of Paschim Vihar. Therefore, efforts were on to identify the exact location of the site of the plot through LM (WZ) and Executive Engineer of the area. He further submitted that the appellant was requested to visit the office of the Assistant Director to assist in the matter but he did not respond to this request nor did he file an appeal before the first appellate authority. The respondent also informed that the said executive engineer and deputy director (LM) were asked to provide information directly to the appellant. Respondent also stated that the site was visited by Assistant Director and efforts were also made to meet the applicant at his residence. However, as the applicant was not at his residence, he could not be met. The respondent stated that all waste building material and extra earth will be removed from the site.
View of CIC
The Commission accepted the explanation provided by the respondents as credible and dropped the penalty proceedings. The Commission directed the respondents to have joint inspection of the site along with appellant. The Commission also noted that the appellant had to undergo considerable harassment to obtain the requested information to the extent that he had to make copies of all documents – numbering 75 pages – and submit them to each of the 12 departments within DDA before he could receive the information. As per the statement provided by the appellant, he has incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs. 2500/- and suffered mental and physical trauma over the period of about nine months in his endeavor to receive information which should have come to him in the normal course. Under section 19(1)(8)(b) the Commission directed the DDA to compensate the complainant by paying him an amount of Rs. 2500/-.
Citation: Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta v. DDA in Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000218
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/390
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission