Central Information Commission
Shri Ravi Airy vs Ministry Of Defence on 6 November, 2008
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00830-SM dated 03.05.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 06.11.2008
Appellant - Shri Ravi Airy
Respondents - CPIO, Ministry of Defence
The Appellant was present.
The following officers were present as representatives of the public Authority concerned.
1. Shri R. Nanavaty, Cantt. Legal Advisor
2. Smt. Valsa Mathew, CPIO
3. Shri Kamal Verma, Officer Clerk The brief facts of the case are as under:-
Shri Airy had approached the CPIO in the Delhi Cantonment Board on 31.12.2007 seeking information about the action taken by the Cantonment Board against occupants of Cantonment Board Fund quarters No. 1/116, 1/118, and 1/119 for completely demolishing the existing Government property and constructing multi storied houses without any prior approval and also for encroachment of public land. He also wanted to know about the penalties etc claimed from the original allottees of the said quarters. Incidentally, he wanted the information in respect of these houses for the period 1995-2005 and he further wanted the matter to be considered in accordance with the revised land policy issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in their order dated 09.02.1995.
2. The CPIO, in his letter dated 29.01.2008 replied to the Applicant providing information on items 1 and 2 of the original application but did not make any mention about the alleged encroachment of public land by the allottees of the said quarters nor did make any reference to the revised land policy issued by the Ministry of Defence referred to in the Applicant's request.
3. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO, Shri Airy filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority in the Delhi Cantonment Board on 13.03.2008. In this, he, among other things, also wanted to know similar information in respect of the quarter No. 1/125 in place of quarter No. 1/119. It is noted that, in the appeal, he raised certain additional and new queries not contained in his original application before the CPIO. The First Appellate Authority admitted his appeal on 15.04.2008 and directed the CPIO concerned to furnish the required information. The action taken by the CPIO following the direction of the Appellate Authority has not been enclosed with the appeal filed by the Appellant. During the hearing, the Respondents produced copies of that letter dated 16.05.2008 in which the CPIO had furnished information to the Appellant as per the direction of the Appellate Authority. A copy of that letter was also handed over to the Appellant.
4. It is to be noted that the Appellant claims not to have received the above letter dated 16.05.2008 earlier. It is further to be noted that the Appellant approached this Commission in second appeal on 03.05.2008 whereas the above reply of the CPIO was issued later which, in any case, does not seem to have reached the Appellant till date.
5. During the hearing, the information sought by the Appellant from the CPIO were read out and discussed in detail. The Appellant had asked for the following information:-
(i) Action taken by Delhi Cantonment Board against occupants of CBF quarters 1/116, 1/118 and 1/119 for completely demolishing the existing Government property and constructing multi storied houses without any prior approval including encroachment of public land.
(ii) Details of the penalties etc claimed from the original allottees.
(iii) This information was to be given for the period 1995-2005.
(iv) This information was to be given in the background of the revised land policy issued by the Ministry of Defence in February, 1995.
6. Later, in his appeal before the First Appellate Authority the Appellant had asked for some additional information. Those are as follows:-
(v) Details about the criminal and legal proceedings undertaken by the Delhi Cantonment Board against the tenants and the original/present occupants of the said quarters including quarter No. 1/125, in place of 1/119.
(vi) The reasons for Delhi Cantonment Board not demolishing unauthorized constructions carried out in the said quarters over encroached Government land during the period 1969-2005
(vii) Copies of the approval granted and compounding fees claimed etc in respect of the said quarters.
7. The Respondents argued that the information already given by the CPIO in his original response dated 29.01.2008 and, later, on 16.05.2008 was based on information held by the Public Authority on the specific query about the unauthorized construction and encroachment of public land by the occupants of these quarters. The Respondents admitted that the information given was not very definite or specific on the question of encroachment by the occupants on this house on public land during the amended period, namely, 1969-2005. The Appellant expressed his total dissatisfaction on the information provided in respect of the status of these quarters prior to 1969 and argued that it was common knowledge that these were all single storied CBF quarters. He also contested the claim of the Respondents that there were no unauthorized constructions in the house No. 1/118 during the period 1995-2005.
DECISION
8. It is noticed that in the original response to his application and in the later response following the direction of the First Appellant Authority, the CPIO has not given any categorical or definite reply on the question of encroachment on public land by the occupants of the said quarters. We, therefore, direct the First Appellate Authority to provide this information within 10 working days from the receipt of this order based on information held and send compliance to the Commission.
9. From the number of queries being made by citizens regarding unauthorized alterations, modifications, constructions to Cantonment Board properties and encroachment in violation of the existing policy, rules and regulations, it appear that there is a need for the Cantonment Board to place all such information in the public domain for the edification of the citizens. Once such information in respect of each of their properties is kept in the public domain, the need for citizens to approach the Cantonment Board for such information would decline and would save both the citizens and the Board of avoidable effort and cost. With these observations and directions, this appeal is disposed off.
10. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar