RTI Corner

The appellant showed a clipping of Hindustan Times, New Delhi edition dated 21.11.2017, which says that the Delhi Development Authority had decided to allot plots to applicants of its 1981 Rohini residential scheme who had bought property in the national capital after the last date of submission of applications. It was further held that nearly 82,000 people had applied for plots under the scheme and 14,000 allottees are still waiting to get the possession. In this regard, the appellant sought file notings and action taken on the decision of Delhi Lieutenant Governor. The appellant sought information pertaining to agenda for relaxation of Rule17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 sent to Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs for consideration and issue of final notification. The respondent informed that the file pertaining to allotment/possession of plots is still under consideration. The Commission directed the respondent to facilitate inspection of documents and provide certified copies of selected documents.
Comments
Information can be denied only under section 8 (1) or section 9 of the RTI Act. The claim that the file is still under consideration cannot be a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Shri Varun Krishna Appellant v. M/o Housing & Urban Affairs in Appeal No.: CIC/MOHUA/A/2018/622330, Date of Decision – 02.08.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding entry and departure timings of a particular vehicle as per the record book of a toll plaza was sought by the appellant. The respondent was absent at the hearing despite valid and timely notice of the CIC for which warning was issued to the concerned respondent PIO and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India. The CIC observed that the concerned PIO should desist from committing such lapse in future. The PIO claimed that relevant records are not available whereas the First Appellate Authority claimed that the sought for information is a third party information, hence, the same cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The PIO and Project Director, NHAI was directed to state on affidavit to the CIC that the information provided on these points is factually correct, based on records and nothing is hidden therein.
Comments
The PIO should either take a prior permission of the CIC before abstaining himself from the hearing or he should send a proper representative to attend the hearing before the CIC after obtaining due permission from the CIC for doing so and after ensuring that the authorised representative is briefed appropriately.
Citation: Dilip Joshi v. National Highways Authority of India in File No.: CIC/ NHAIN /A/2017/102258, Date of hearing: 20.03.2018, 13.07.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/