YASHPAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this case, had applied in November 2010 for allotment of a residential plot on freehold basis. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,55,700/ - i.e. 10% of the plot price as earnest money alongwith his application form. The draw of lots was held on 09.11.2011. It is alleged by the petitioner that as per information received by him from some property dealers, the petitioner was successful in draw and plot No. 334, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Rohtak was earmarked for him. However, the petitioner's name did not find mention in the list of successful applicants and another applicant, Ravi Sharma -respondent No. 3, having registration No. RTK -6 -06428 instead of RTK -6 -02428 (registration number of the petitioner) was shown as successful qua Plot No. 334 in 8 marla category.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the State Public Information Officer for providing the list of successful applicants in the draw of lots alongwith the DVD wherein the proceedings of the draw were recorded. The appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Information Commissioner when the information was not supplied by the department. Vide letter dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P -6) the petitioner was informed by the Public Information Officer that the list of successful applicants and videography cannot be given to him as it is a confidential record related to the department but he can see the list during the office hours in the office. Ultimately, the State Information Commission, Haryana vide order dated 06.02.2013, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, directed that the relevant CD be furnished to the appellant and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - was imposed on the SPIO -cum -Deputy Superintendent Office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak for the delay.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 it is stated that wide publicity had been given for the draw of lots and the entire process of draw of lots was videographed. The detailed procedure followed by the authorities is narrated in para 1 of the preliminary objections. The draw of lots was conducted before the general public and children studying in the Government school were invited to pick up the stubs/coupons at the time of draw and each of the stub/coupon of the successful applicant having application number, registration number, name, father's name and plot number was signed by the Committee members and were pasted in the stub registers. The said stubs/coupons were also counter checked by a person from the general public. It is further averred that it was the coupon of respondent No. 3, which was drawn and it was due to an oversight that registration No. 2428 was announced instead of registration No. 6428. The details regarding the said application number, name, father's name, were, however, of respondent No. 3 and were correctly declared and the said stub was signed on the spot by the Committee members.