PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the parties heard.  Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application that there is a delay of 17 days in filing this Revision Petition.  This is supported by the affidavit filed by Sh. D.K. Gupta, Director, H-I,  Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.  That affidavit appears to be false. In the application moved for condonation of delay, it is specifically stated that the certified copy was provided on 11.12.2012 whereas R.T.I. says, it was provided on 17.09.2012.  Consequently, the affidavit filed by Sh. D.K. Gupta, Director, H-1, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, is false.  The plea submitted to this Commission that there was delay of 17 days only, is nothing but a ruse to make sure that the delay will be condoned. We have perused the RTI report, which appears as Annexure R-2, to Dr. A.K. Dewan, which runs as follows:

   “Dr. A.K. Dewan

              311 Mavilla, Mayur Vihar,

    Phase-I, Delhi-110091

Sub:  Information under RTI.

Ref:  Application No. 2701 dated 6.9.2013.

Sir,

        This is with reference to your RTI Application, I.D. No. 2071 dated 6.9.13 addressed to Director (Nazarat)/PIO, DDA.  The parawise reply are as under:-

1.    The order dated 27.8.2012 was received in the Main Diary Branch of DDA on 17.9.2012 through Speed Post (ED 737759014 IN).

2.   Yes, the above said order was diarised vide diary No.R-7560 on 17.9.2012.

3.   The said order was sent to Asstt. Director (CLA)/Administration on the very same date i.e. on 17.9.2012.  However, copy of the receipt is enclosed herewith.”

2.      It clearly, specifically and unequivocally states that the petitioner was given the copy on 17.09.2012.  The order in this was passed on 27.08.2012.  Sh. D.K. Gupta has filed the false affidavit.  Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as costs, which will be deducted from the salary of Sh. D.K. Gupta and be paid to the complainant through demand draft directly, within 90 days otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

3.      Now let us turn to the merits of this case.  This is a classic case where an old lady aged about 70 years could not get the SFS flat, though she applied for the same in the year 1982.  More than three decades have elapsed.  The DDA has left no stone unturned in harassing that old lady.  Counsel for the petitioner submits that some identification from the lady should come.  However, the record shows that the petitioner had appeared before the DDA thrice.  It is apparent from the document issued under RTI Act.  Its Sr. No. 1 mentions that Ms. Padma Jain, E-160 (0404)94/SFS, KL/III.   She was called for verification and genuineness of lady.  Secondly, she appeared before Assistant Director. Vide letter dated 05.12.2008 issued to Ms. Padma Jain to enable D.D.A. to obtain documents/proof in respect of her identification.  Thereafter she complied with that order dated 05.12.2008.  On 14.01.2009, the complainant sent the intimation from Canada and sent a letter in respect of letter dated 05.12.2008.  She further stated that in order to avoid delay, she was enclosing herewith the following proofs in respect of her personal identification:

1.      One photograph & three signatures duly attested by

Notary Public.

2.      Photocopy of her Indian Passport.

3.      Photocopy of her Driving License.

4.      Thereafter, the proceedings took place by Hon’ble Justice P.N.Nag in the Lok Adalat, On 01.12.2009, it was ordered, “the Additional Director states that the genuineness of the petitioner has been verified and for issue of demand cum allotment letter the matter is being processed.”

5.      Thereafter, Justice P.N. Nag, on 02.02.2010 further ordered, “the AD (SFS) states that the matter is being considered and sent to the Lt. Governor for approval.”

6.      There is again order of Justice P.N. Nag  dated 23.3.2010, wherein it was observed:-

“The question requires to be considered in the case was about the verification of the genuineness of the petitioner for issue of demand letter.  The genuineness of the petitioner admittedly has been already been verified.

        The AD on 2.2.2010 that the matter is being considered and sent to the Lt. Governor.  Till now the file is still lying with the DDA and has not been sent to the Lt. Governor.  I am informed the queries are being raised by the Director and the Commissioner (Housing).  I fail to understand why the matter is being delayed when clarification about the genuineness of the petitioner has been verified.  I think the DDA will appreciate and the matter should not have been delayed for so long when the matter could have been sorted out with the officer concerned by discussion.  Copy of the order be sent to the Commission (H), DDA.”

7.      Justice P.N. Nag displayed his annoyance for delaying the matter unnecessarily.  It appears that the DDA thinks that it has more powers than Courts and Lok Adalats.  The DDA is terribly remiss in discharge of its duties.  DDA does not have bottomless powers.  This case has disclosed the sloth and callousness of DDA Administration.  This smacks of their malafide intentions.

8.      The order of the State Commission be complied with, within 90 days from today, otherwise, it will carry penal interest in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 

9.      The case filed by the petitioner is fragile and vexatious.  The same is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 26 of the C.P.Act. The said costs be also paid to the complainant/respondent through demand draft directly within 90 days otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.