*
*
*New Delhi, April 11 : The Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay Rs.15,000
ascompensation<http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-87677.html#> to
an RTI applicant who "suffered" because the
housing<http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-87677.html#> agency
provided the information after a delay of about four months.*
The decision came on
anapplication<http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-87677.html#>
filed
by Govind Prasad Aggarwal, a resident of Haryana, who had sought some
information under the Right to Information (RTI) regarding a DDA flat in
Mayur Vihar area of east Delhi.

Aggarwal had filed the RTI application Feb 29, 2008 but got information only
after July 28, 2008.

Under the RTI Act, "information is required to be provided in 30 days time.
In other words, the information should have been provided by the end of
March, 2008. However, there was delay of about four months," Information
Commissioner M.L. Sharma noted in his order last month.

"It is clear that this matter has passed through the hands of several
officials, and, therefore, it is difficult to determine individual
responsibility for the purposes of imposition of penalty under the RTI Act.
The fact, however, remains that there has been delay of four months in
responding to the RTI application," Sharma observed.

The DDA officers "vehemently" opposed compensation stating that "the matter
involved several departments/offices of the DDA," which naturally took
time.

"They also plead(ed) that delay was not deliberate...was inherent in the
situation...The explanation given by the DDA officers is not found to be
satisfactory. The appellant pleads that this has caused him detriments and
he requests for compensation," Sharma said.

"Delay of four months has occurred in supply of information to the appellant
and thereby the appellant has suffered detriment... On a thoughtful
consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice
will be met if compensation of Rs.15,000 is paid to the appellant," Sharma
directed.

Anilkumar BVN

Reply via email to