Rejoinder

1. The Comment views the Complaint against s.4 violation as an Appeal and omissions / anomalies illustrated therein as 'suggestions' and says (in 'measures suggested' and in conclusion) that NIC has been / is being advised to incorporate them in the GAMS as well as in the new website under construction (Appendix).

2. Complainants appreciate that glaring omissions/anomalies amounting to violations have not been routinely denied. However, they had not made any 'suggestions':

a) Complainants 1 to 3 have no cause to make 'suggestions'. Their grievance (para 1, 4(e), 4(f) and 5 and Ground H) has been ignored - notably by not offering either any information or any clarification as to why violations were not rectified by October 2005 under s.4 of RTI Act. Complainants respectfully additionally pray for consideration of compensation options apropos their Ground H. 

b) Complainant 4 made no 'suggestions' as DOE had not solicited any (though it might have, as she was formerly Senior Fellow with HUDCO, under MOUD, handling Estate Management among other areas). On GAMS per se, professional ethics prevent her from making 'suggestions' (as she is not qualified in IT) and fundamental rights allow her to make 'complaints' (as she is hampered in her professional work as qualified planner, qualified researcher and qualified trainer by not having meaningful access to authentic public data for use and inferencing, including directly on her web portal, despite IT Act and RTI Act). Complainant 4 is aggrieved by the way in which the Comment trivializes broader issues in Grounds A to G to minor 'points' by which they were merely illustrated.

c) The Complainants could have directly resorted to NIC complaint procedures to make 'suggestions' in respect of specific anomalies as DOE website is hosted by NIC and NIC also hosts Oracle databases. (Complainant no.4 did bring to notice of NIC the fact of the instant Complaint, informally at a seminar on 23.06.06). They could also have made requests under s.6 of RTI Act (as they have been doing to other MOUD agencies in matters mentioned in para-1). They chose to make Complaint against violation of s.4 of RTI Act, as in their view meaningful resort to both other options is predicated on s.4 compliance. The Comment entirely ignores the s.4 Grounds and Prayer in the Complaint and notes that Complainants did not approach in s.6 and conveys that their 'suggestions' have been forwarded to NIC. In effect, the Comment, seeks to 'transfer' the Complaint to resorts to which the Complainants have chosen not to take recourse.

3. The Comment / 'measures suggested' rely on a new improved website. However, the Complainant's prayer is not for any improved website but specifically for upgrading access over the internet to information in the GAMS database to a level compliant with RTI Act. In this regard it is submitted that:

a) The Comment vaguely asserts that at present 'transfer of information from GAMS to the website... is done on a weekly basis' and 'the user thus perceives the information to be either outdated or false' as information 'is always restricted to activities on GAMS up to date of the last updation' (comments on para-2&3). However, this does not explain anomalies illustrated in the Complaint. Even if data is updated weekly, it should be internally consistent and could be time-stamped / display date of update. It is also unclear what prevented the simple 'measures suggested' now from being incorporated in the existing procedure.

b) About the existing website the Comment says it was constructed in 2001 and linked to GAMS in 2004 (comment on para-1). It is not disclosed how the linkage was made in 2004 and what will ensure improved linkage in 2006. About the new website the Comment discloses only that it is under construction by NIC, incorporating 'suggestions received from various quarters for improvement of our website', likely to be in place by end of July 2006, drawing upon GAMS 'in real time through the EAWAS' internet based website to which the entire functioning of DOE, Delhi on GAMS is to be transferred (comments on para-1). No details of EAWAS are disclosed, even as information about the upradation process is also liable to be disclosed under s.4, including under s.4(1)(d) to the Complainants, in view of their 'suggestions' being incorporated in the same.

c) It is not clear from the Comment what level of access upgradation to GAMS data will accrue from website improvement and if the upgraded level will be compliant with RTI Act in terms of meaningful querying and connectivity (for, say, use and inferencing on professional portals). Nothing is said also about authentication in the improved level of access (while asserting / admitting that the existing level of access provides information that 'appears' outdated and false). Clarity on these and such points is germane to the Grounds and Prayer of the Complaint and is not offered in the Comment on behalf of DOE/MOUD.

It is prayed that the Complaint be allowed in view of the above additional submissions.

COMPLAINANT No.4, New Delhi, 10th July 2006

Appendix

Complaint dt 14.05.06 - Illustrative anomalies :: Comment dt 23.06.06 - comment / measure suggested :: (Remarks on disputed points)

4) Waiting List link disabled :: Not disabled, it was never constructed / NIC can be asked to rename 'Search...' as WL :: (Annexure-A shows both; needed for different uses)

4) Vacancies tables not verifiable | 4 a)Lists of vacant units are not viewable, anomaly - Anex-1 :: point well taken, will be available on the website ...

4 b) Type-wise tables show all allotments in category 'Other' / in lists 'category' field contains for numerous records also 'Regular' and 'Change', Anex-2, 3 :: Anomaly exists and needs to be corrected; NIC has been asked to correct the display to show allotments under right categories

4 c) tables for Vacancies are locality-wise and type-wise, but indicate neither all localities nor all existing stock, eg: 88 Type-7 units in Delhi, not possible to view a list of all 88 :: Assertion incorrect, Annexure-B :: (From the screen at Annexure-B Complainants could not generate list of, say, all 88 Type-7 units in Delhi)

4 c) rampant unauthorized occupancy / subletting, cases under eviction / cancellation notices :: Not available on website, NIC is being advised to post... on website under construction

4 e) permissible sub-letting / sharing :: GAMS not programmed

4 e) discretionary allotments / precedent cases of especially functional and compassionate grounds :: Available on GAMS but not on website, NIC is being advised ... on website under construction

4 e) Nearly no GAMS data on Servant Quarters / Garages :: needs to be corrected

4 e) category field in some records in the lists contains "AACC.(DEMOLITION)", it is not clear what exactly this means, Anex-4 :: Categories as created in the GAMS program, NIC being advised to display expanded forms...

4 f) lists have wide range of unexplained nomenclature in especially lower Types that account for most of the stock :: Obscurity inherent ... for normal user is understandable, NIC being advised...