Jump to content

DDA penalised by CIC

Recommended Posts


The Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay Rs 1,750 as fine after its Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to respond to a petition filed under the Right to Information Act within the stipulated seven days.



Holding DDA guilty of taking a ‘dismissive attitude’, the CIC Bench headed by Chief Information Commissioner ordered it to deduct the fine amount from the salary of the erring PIO who did not give information regarding transfer of lease hold rights to the allottees of certain plots.


“This information could have been provided within days of the application, instead of the months that it has taken,” it said, asking DDA to provide information in a week to applicant Pawan Kumar Jain. Terming the information sought by Jain as specific and simple, the CIC said last week that “The supply of the information cannot be circumvented by supplying a copy of the file, which in itself may or may not contain the information sought”.


Considering the apology of the PIO that delay was caused due to heavy work pressure, the Commission said that “The admission makes the PIO liable to penalty... as per provisions of RTI Act”.


Jain had submitted the application to the PIO on October 24 last year seeking information on the stage at which DDA transfers the lease hold and ownership rights to an allottee.

He approached the DDA chief when no response was forthcoming, but this did not help. Eventually, he wrote to the CIC, which not only allowed his appeal but also penalised DDA for the delay and asked it to provide information in a week’s time.


(Source: The Tribune, Dec.11, 2006)


(I observe a key ruling in this news report, that I have highlighted for the members of the RTI community--Ganpat)

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thaks Ganpat bringing this stuff. I think this decision will really help lots of people who are running from pillar to post to obtain information from DDA

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a great news with correct emphasis which clearly brings out the spirit of RTI.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done wahe guru bless the person who gave the orders

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • venugopal
      By venugopal
      My application got delayed and the officer was apparently not responsible but his office assist were.
      I learned that in RTI rule 20 only officers are liable for punishment under RTI. Then how those clerks can be held responsible?
      There should be a clause to fix the people below ACPIO too.
    • maneesh
      By maneesh
      Days after receiving flak for restrictive use of the penalty clause, the Central Information Commission on Thursday levied maximum penalty under RTI Act against registrar of Benaras Hindu University.
      The commission found the Principal Information Officer (in this case the registrar) guilty of denying information to the applicant Dhananjay Tripathi, who sought the inquiry report into the death of his friend Yogesh Roy. A penalty of Rs 25,000 has been imposed.
      For the first time, the CIC invoked the penalty clause against the official who was not the original PIO. A junior level official was earlier the PIO but during the hearing of the case the university informed that the registrar is assisting the PIO in the case. Therefore, under the RTI Act, he became liable for punishment as an official senior of the original PIO.
      By imposing the maximum penalty allowed under RTI Act, the commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny the information requested without giving any justification as to how these provisions are applicable is “simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information”. The CIC had earlier warned BHU in this regard.
      When even after a full bench hearing in presence of BHU Vice Chancellor Punjab Singh, the information was denied to Tripathi, the penalty clause was invoked.
      On Thursday, the Information Commissioner OP Kejriwal also asked the university to provide the copy of the inquiry report to Tripathi within a week.
      Roy had allegedly died due to medical negligence and the report is believed to have found merit in this view. However, the university debunked the report that it was not according to the terms of reference. That was done after Tripathi sought a copy of the report under RTI Act earlier this year.
      The CIC is also expected to issue an order into the inquiry conducted on the allegation of the application that he was discriminated by BHU for filing the application. Tripathi had alleged that he was denied promotion to the next class on malafide grounds.
      CIC sources said that the inquiry officer has finalized its report and an order can be expected on that by end of this week.
      RTI: CIC levies max penalty against BHU registrar : HindustanTimes.com


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy