Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00145. Case: Ajit Singh Malik Vs DDA. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00145 |
| Judges | Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act |
| Judgement Date | April 10, 2006 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C. 1. Appellant Shri Ajit Singh Malik of Masoodpur, New Delhi made an application to CPIO Shri RM Lal, Director DDA, undated, but assigned ID No. 68 of 4/1/''06, according to the PIO''s response letter, seeking information on permissions given on the following: 1) The auction of plot for Project named Vasant Kunj Mall on Nelson Mandela Marg; 2) In Vasant Kunj the site for Sun City Mall near Masoodpur Central Market. 2. Appellant Malik also asked that because of the death that occurred at the Jasola Mall under construction, this be treated as a case of life and liberty under proviso to Section 7(1) of the Act. PIO Shri Lal replied on 10/1/''06 detailing the projects sanctioned and those under consideration at both sites On the question of safety of labour PIO indicated that this was the responsibility of owners during construction. Not satisfied with the response, appellant assisted by authorized representative Ms Gita Dewan Verma made a 1st appeal to Appellate Authority AK Jain, Commissioner Planning DDA, which is in greater detail than the initial application, and appeals also against the PIO not having considered the case one of concern for life and liberty A reply to this not having been received till the time, a second appeal has been filed with this Commission on 20/3/''06 3. Authorised representative of appellant, Ms Gita Dewan Verma present together with appellant Shri Ajit Singh Mailk, and with PIO, Shri RM Lal, Director (Building), Shri Mohan Chandra and Shri JK Mondal all from DDA. The DDA representatives presented copy of letter No. F. 8/RTI/ID/No 68/Bldg/06/04/Pt1/57 of 20/3/''06 addressed to the appellant and signed for the appellate authority This has also been received by the appellant as quoted in rejoinder to the DDA''s response to the appeal Notice. Vide this letter the Appellate authority has held that the original application of the appellant stands replied that "Clause 7 (i) of RTI Act is not attracted", and that the matter is sub-judice DecisionNotice 4. Although there is merit in appellant''s argument that the appeal was responded to late, the respondent has argued that this was within the outer limit of forty five days, the delay having occurred because issues went beyond the purview of the Building Section and required determination before a final response. However we find that in cases both of the plea for response in forty- eight hours and response to the appeal in... |
To continue reading
Request your trial