Allotment order of DDA - CIC: Record maintenance is a core responsibility of public authority; PIO to search & furnish correct information regarding the copies of the order on which the original files of the recruitment held from 1986-1999 were weeded out

O R D E R

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on points, as under:-

A. Kindly provide the information whether the allotment of the aforesaid Flat no. L-1/27-A, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi allotted vide File no. 37 (614)/76/HB M-lII is still seen in the name of Sh. BabuRam or not. Also specify’ whether the abee said allotment has been cancelled, if so, please specify the reasons / grounds for the cancellation order, if any and supply the copy of ‘cancellation letter/ order, if any, alongwith note sheet of file no. 37 (614)/76/HB M-II.

B. Kindly provide the information whether any recovery of damages or higher purchase charges are subsisting against the above said allotment, as on date, if so please specify the total amount of the same, Whether the aforesaid allotment has been surrendered by the allottee or not, till date.

C. Kindly provide the information whether any mutation order in regard to the above said flat has been made in the name of any person, if so, give details of the mutation order and the in whose favour the same has been made, with full details.

D. What is the policy of DDA to deal with the allotments made under the re-settlement scheme, including the above said allotment of Flat no. L-1/27-A, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

E. Please provide details of the amount in the shape of instalments, damages or other charges deposited with DPA with regard to the aforesaid allotment.

F. for what reason the above said file was referred to MIG (Gen.) section of DDA and what action was taken with regard to mutation of the aforesaid flat in the name of Dulichand S/O Late babu Ram, give details.

G. When the aforesaid case for mutation was kept for consideration vide your letter no. 37 (614)76-HIM/163 dt. 20.01.2000, then what action was taken thereafter on the request / letter of Dulichand presented before Com(H)’s Public hearing, give details

H. Specify the purpose and reason of inspection of flat no. 27-A, PKT L-1, KalkajiExtn. New Delhi on 28.11.2019. Who was found in possessionor occupation of the above said flat, in the inspection.

The CPIO, Delhi Development Authority, vide letter dated 11.11.2022denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 25.11.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Advocate Manish Kumar Present in Person (heard after the hearing)

Respondent: Mr Nakul Ahuja DDA Advocate Present in Person

The Appellant’s representative while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that the said property pertains to his late father Sh. BabuRam. He said that he had sought whether the allotment of the Flat no. L-1/27-A, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi allotted vide File no. 37 (614)/76/HB is still in the name of Sh. BabuRam. He said that he has no sibling, who has a right in this property and therefore he had sought the information but the Respondent has not furnished any information to him so far by wrongly mentioning him as the third party. The respondent stated that the file of the mentioned flat is not readily traceable on record, hence cannot be furnished.

The Appellant said that no FIR , Memo etc was lodged by the Respondent office , if the said file was not traceable, otherwise the file could have be recreated within 1.5 years, and an appropriate reply could have been furnished till now.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that record maintenance is a core responsibility of the public authority. They are usually required to maintain accurate and organized records to ensure transparency, accountability, and the ability to provide information to the public when necessary. In the current case the CPIO has failed to maintain the records and provide appropriate information to the Appellant. Therefore the Commission directs the CPIO to search and furnish correct information regarding the copies of the order on which the original files pertaining to the recruitment held from 1986-1999 were weeded out, and furnish to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

If the CPIO is not able to give the information, he should furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability or confidentiality of the Information or quoting their record retention policy, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. In the case of the CPIO filing a wrong affidavit, the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Duli Chand v. Delhi Development Authority, CIC/DDATY/A/2022/157445-UM; Date of Decision: 02.11.2023