Central Information Commission
Subhash Chander Banga vs Registrar Cooperative Society on 26 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/REGCS/C/2024/612685
Subhash Chander Banga ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Old Court Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025
Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.01.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 29.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 08.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Purpose of Information: I am harassed by K.R. Agrawal Arbitrator appointed by Sh. Pradeep Deputy Registrar (Arbitration) decided case as Sh. K.R. Agrawal, Arbitrator/ Nominee of Registrar Cooperative Societies Delhi of arbitration passed order in the matter of Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Page 1 of 15 Rohini, Delhi 110085 V/s Sh. N.K. Jetli Falt No. 46-C Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085, Ex. President & Anr case no. 35/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21 dated 26-12-2023 without giving records to me as demanded Under RTI Act 2005,
1. Please provide copies of bills and vouchers and mode of payment showing cost of boundary wall Rs. 31.87 Lacs
2. Please provide the record of measurement of boundary wall at various columns, videography, person conducted detail measurement detail calculation and other etc. to estimate cost.
3. Please provide audit report of 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 along with minutes of AGM for the year 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2018-19.
4. Please provide copy of special audit from the year 2015 to 2019.
5. Please provide copy permissions letter of RCS office to conduct special audit at Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085.
6. Please provide acceptance report of special audit report by RCS office of Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085.
7. Please provide copies of minutes of meetings from July 2015 to September 2018.
8. Please provide the details of formula approved by RCS office used for estimation cost of boundary wall as 17 Lacs instead of 32 Lacs as actual at at Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085.
9. Please provide the details of inventory of materials like cement, sand, bricks and marble dana, iron etc and its values submitted to RCS office.
10. Please provide cost of CCTV camera, LED Lights and renovation of guard rooms as included in the cost of boundary wall with copies of bills as submitted by Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085.
11. Please provide cost of renovation of society gates and the cost of 3rd gate as submitted by Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085.
12. Please provide the copy of AGM report submitted to RCS office in the year 2011 by Shri Ashok Aggarwal Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 of Rs. 30 Lacs with details.
13. Please provide the name & address of architect conducted the estimate of existing boundary wall as 17 Lacs submitted to RCS office by Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot Page 2 of 15 No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 with copy of estimate valuation reports please.
14. Please provide the name & address of auditor conducted the estimate of existing boundary wall as 17 Lacs submitted to RCS office by Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 with copy of auditor report please.
15. Please provide the complaint received from Sh. SK Sood by Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Societies, Ayodhya Enclave, Plot No. 30/2, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 with copy as received in the RCS office for procedural and financial irregulates."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.02.2024, held as under.
"The PIO/AR is directed to provide requisite information in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant within 07 days of receipt of this order. Also, if the applicant desires, he may be allowed to visit the office of the PIO to inspect the available records relating to his application to get the copies of required information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
4. A written submission dated 13.08.2025 (copy marked to the Complainant) filed by Shri Rajeev Chhabra, AR/PIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"In the reference it is submitted that then PIO Sh. Joseph Baxla provided point wise replies to the RTI ID RCOSO/R/2024/60008 and it was partly forwarded to concerned Assistant Registrar (Audit) O/o RCS vide letter dated 30.01.2024. It is further observed that FAA appeal registration no. RCOSO/A/2024/60006 dated 29.01.2024 is a complaint which was duly disposed by then FAA.
It is further to inform that any arbitrator is appointed with the approval of competent Authority as per provision in DCS Act 2003 & DCS Rule 2007. There are also provisions under that to file further appeal at the relevant platform against the arbitration award. Any member of the society is at liberty to take such remedy available to him."Page 3 of 15
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rajeev Chhabra, AR/PIO along with Shri Ashish Raman, Sr. Asst. (Audit) and Shri Ravi Kumar, Jr. Asst. (Audit) present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 21.03.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submission of the Complainant is taken on record.
7. The Complainant during hearing reiterated contents of his written submission wherein he inter alia pleaded as under:
"Facts of the Case:
1. Background of Dispute: The Appellant is a member of the Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Ayodhya Enclave, Rohini, Delhi. A dispute arose regarding serious financial irregularities in the Society's accounts, particularly an alleged misappropriation of funds in construction works (a boundary wall project costing approximately 31.87 lakhs). An arbitration case (No. 35/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21) was decided on 26-12-2023 by an arbitrator (Sh.
K.R. Agrawal, Nominee of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies) appointed by the Deputy Registrar (Arbitration), Sh. Pradeep Kumar. The arbitrator passed an ex- parte award against the Appellant "without giving records to me as demanded"
(in the Appellant's words). In the said award, the Appellant - who had no active role in the financial misconduct was selectively held liable and compelled to pay a sum of 15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). Meanwhile, the primary accused, Mr. N.K. Jetli (ex-President of the Society and the principal wrongdoer in the misappropriation), had passed away and thus faced no recovery or legal action. No First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the authorities against any culprit despite the substantial evidence of fraud and financial irregularities unearthed in audits and complaints.
2. RTI Application dated 08.01.2024: Aggrieved by the one-sided arbitration outcome and lack of transparency, the Appellant filed an RTI application on 08- 01-2024 under the RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure A). The application was addressed to the Public Information Officer, Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), Delhi. The Appellant sought 15 specific pieces of information related to the Society's Page 4 of 15 finances and the arbitration matters, including copies of bills, vouchers and measurement records for the ₹31.87 lakhs boundary wall, audit reports for 2016-2019, the special audit report (2015-2019) and its authorisation by RCS, minutes of Society meetings (2015-2018), the formula used by RCS to estimate the boundary wall cost at 17 lakhs (vs 32 lakhs actual), details of material inventories and costs, expenses on CCTV/lighting/renovations included in the project, cost of additional society gates, a 2011 AGM report of ₹30 lakhs, identities of the architect/auditor who valued the wall at ₹17 lakhs, and a copy of a complaint by one Sh. S.K. Sood on procedural and financial irregularities (Annexure A for full list of queries). The purpose of seeking this information was to obtain evidence and records that were withheld during the arbitration, and to bring to light the true facts of the financial misconduct, so that the Appellant could defend himself and ensure accountability of the real offenders.
3. PIO's Response Denial of Information: The Respondent PIO disposed of the RTI request via the online RTI portal on 29-01-2024, without furnishing any of the requested documents. Instead of providing the copies of records as sought, the PIO's reply refused substantive disclosure on ten of the points by directing the Appellant to "visit Group Housing Section-02 for inspection of record as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005". For the remaining five points (pertaining to audit reports, special audit and related documents queries 3, 4, 5, 6 & 14), the PIO stated that "the said information is not available in the records of Group Housing Section-2, hence applicant is advised to contact AR (Audit)". In sum, no copies of any documents were supplied. The PIO did not claim any exemption under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act for denying the information; nor did he provide any proper justification for refusing to supply copies. By merely offering inspection for some records and shifting the burden for other records onto another officer/department (Audit), the PIO effectively stonewalled the RTI application. The Appellant submits that this amounted to a complete rejection of the RTI request, as he was left with no usable information or documents after the PIO's disposal. The PIO's reply also did not clearly inform the Appellant of his first appeal rights or the details of the First Appellate Authority, as mandated by the RTI Act's procedure (the online status did not show any such details in the provided excerpt).
4. First Appeal and Appellate Order: Aggrieved by the PIO's non-compliance and evasive reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 17-05-2024 under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act (Annexure B copy of first appeal submission/portal printout). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the Office of RCS (believed to be the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar) decided the appeal on 12-06-2024 (Order No. RCOSO/A/2024/60040, Annexure C). In a reasoned order, the FAA allowed the appeal, noting the PIO's failure to provide the information. The FAA directed the Page 5 of 15 PIO/Assistant Registrar to "provide requisite information in terms of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant within 07 days". The FAA further stated that if the Appellant desired, he "may be allowed to visit the office of the PIO to inspect the available records relating to his application to get the copies of required information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.". In other words, the First Appellate Authority explicitly ordered the PIO to supply the requested documents forthwith (within 7 days) and, if needed, facilitate inspection for the Appellant to identify and obtain copies of the relevant records. The FAA's order also reminded the Appellant of the right to second appeal before the CIC under Section 19(3) if still aggrieved.
5. Non-Compliance and Second Appeal/Complaint: Despite the FAA's clear directions, the Respondent PIO failed to comply with the appellate order. Even after waiting for the stipulated 7 days and beyond, no information was provided to the Appellant. The PIO neither sent copies of the documents requested nor arranged any meaningful inspection opportunity within the timeframe. The Appellant was effectively forced to pursue further remedies as the information continued to be withheld. Consequently, the Appellant approached this Hon'ble Commission by filing the present Second Appeal/Complaint (under Section 19(3) and/or Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, as applicable) on the grounds of continued denial of information and non-compliance with the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission has been pleased to register the case (No. CIC/REGCS/C/2024/612685) and issued a Notice of Hearing dated 29-07-2025, scheduling the matter for hearing on 18-08-2025 before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari (Annexure D - Notice of Hearing). In accordance with the CIC's notice and guidelines, the Appellant now submits this written petition containing the facts, grounds of challenge, and prayer for relief, for the Hon'ble Commission's kind consideration. A copy of this written submission is also being served on the Respondent PIO as required. Grounds for Challenge:
The Appellant respectfully submits that the actions and inactions of the Respondent public authority are illegal, violative of the RTI Act, 2005, and against binding judicial precedents. The rejection of the RTI request and the failure to provide information have caused grave injustice to the Appellant. The grounds for this Second Appeal/Complaint are set out below, each of which is without prejudice to one another:
Violation of Section 7(1) Failure to Provide Information: Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO was duty-bound to either provide the information requested within 30 days or validly refuse with appropriate exemption clauses and reasons. In this case, the PIO did not provide a single document in response to the RTI application, thus flouting the very mandate of timely information delivery. The Page 6 of 15 refusal to give copies of records - by only offering inspection and claiming "records not available" - amounts to a constructive denial of information. There was no lawful exemption invoked to justify withholding the documents. Such blanket non-disclosure violates the Appellant's statutory right to information under Section 3 of the Act and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act to promote transparency.
Violation of Section 7(8) - No Reasons for Rejection Given: Even if the PIO considered any part of the request to be exempt or not fulfillable, Section 7(8) of the RTI Act obligates the PIO to communicate to the applicant the specific "reasons for such refusal", along with the particulars of appellate authority and the period for appeal. In the present case, the PIO's reply did not cite any reason recognized by the RTI Act for refusing access example, no exemption under Section 8(1) was claimed, and no explanation was given as to how providing copies would "disproportionately divert resources" or otherwise impede any process. The reply merely deferred responsibility (asking the Appellant to inspect files or approach another officer). This fails to meet the requirements of Section 7(8), and as such, the denial was procedurally improper and illegal. Moreover, Section 19(5) of the Act places the onus on the PIO to prove that a refusal of a request was justified in any appeal proceedings. The Respondent cannot discharge this burden, as there is no valid justification on record for refusing the information indeed, none of the RTI Act's permissible exemptions apply to the information sought, which largely comprises audit reports, expenditure records, and official correspondence in a cooperative society matter of public interest. Failure to Transfer Application to Concerned Authority (Section 6(3)): The PIO's reply admitted that information for points 3, 4, 5, 6, and 14 (mostly audit- related records) "is not available in the records of Group Housing Section-2" and advised the Appellant to "contact AR (Audit)" for those details. This approach is a direct breach of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Section 6(3) provides that when an application is received by a public authority but pertains to information held by "another public authority" (or another unit/department), the PIO "must transfer the application or relevant part thereof to the other public authority within 5 days" and inform the applicant accordingly. In this case, if certain records were maintained by the Audit Wing (Assistant Registrar Audit) of the RCS office, the PIO ought to have proactively transferred those queries to that authority rather than directing the citizen to file a fresh request. The PIO cannot simply abdicate his responsibility by acting as a post office as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, PIOs must make the effort to collect and provide information instead of shifting the burden onto the applicant. The PIO's failure to forward the queries to the Audit office within 5 days (and instead telling the Appellant to approach another officer) was unlawful. It caused unnecessary delay and effectively Page 7 of 15 denied the Appellant information that should have been gathered and furnished under the RTI Act's mechanism.
Denial of Information in the Form Requested (Violation of Section 7(9)): The Appellant explicitly requested "copies" of various records (bills, reports, minutes, letters, etc.) in his RTI application. The RTI Act (Section 7(9)) stipulates that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought (i.e. copies, in this case), unless doing so would "disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority" or harm the record. Here, providing photocopies of specific documents (many of which likely already exist in file or digital form) is not a burdensome task - no claim was made by the PIO that it would strain resources or damage records. Despite this, the PIO refused to provide copies and only offered inspection, without any valid reason. While inspection can be a supplementary mode of access, it was not an adequate substitute in this scenario: the Appellant needed tangible copies for use in his legal defense and for record-keeping. The PIO's one-line offer of inspection (with no details on when/how to schedule it) appears to have been a tactic to avoid providing photocopies. This approach violated Section 7(9) and the spirit of citizen-friendly access effectively forcing the Appellant to personally sift through files for the information that the PIO could easily have collated and supplied. The Hon'ble CIC and superior courts have consistently disapproved of PIOs using inspection as a means to shirk their duty when photocopies could reasonably be given. Therefore, this ground further underscores the unjust manner in which the PIO handled the request.
Non-Compliance with First Appellate Authority's Order: The Respondent not only erred in the initial handling of the RTI, but compounded the illegality by disregarding the binding order of the First Appellate Authority dated 12-06-2024 (Annexure C). The FAA unequivocally directed the PIO to provide the information within 7 days. This order had legal force under the RTI Act's appeal mechanism. However, the PIO/Department ignored it -no follow-up response or documents were sent to the Appellant even after the order. Such non-compliance violates Section 19(6) (which requires the FAA's decision to be implemented) and frustrates the RTI framework. It is a serious contempt of the RTI process that merits the intervention of this Hon'ble Commission. The Appellant submits that the PIO's defiance of the FAA's order indicates a willful disregard of the law, reinforcing the need for penal action under Section 20 of the Act. If public authorities can ignore appellate orders with impunity, it undermines the efficacy of the entire RTI regime.
Information Sought is not Exempt Importance of Transparency: None of the information requested by the Appellant falls under the exemptions to disclosure provided in Section 8 or the restrictions under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Page 8 of 15 queries relate to financial and administrative records of a cooperative housing society, audits, and official actions by the RCS office -all of which involve public interest in transparency and do not attract any privacy, security, or other exemption. In fact, Section 8(2) of the Act would support disclosure here even if any exemption were arguable, because the public interest in exposing corruption/malpractice outweighs any protected interest. The Appellant is essentially asking for documents that reveal how a large sum of money was spent or misappropriated in a public-regulated cooperative society, and how the regulator (RCS) responded. The RTI Act was enacted to facilitate exactly this kind of accountability of public authorities and those dealing with public funds. Moreover, as a member of the Society and a person directly affected by the RCS's decisions, the Appellant has a special interest in these records. The law (Section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act) even obligates public authorities to provide reasons for their administrative decisions to affected persons. The information sought by the Appellant would shed light on the reasons and basis for holding him liable for Rs.15 lakhs, and the extent of procedural compliance by RCS in addressing the Sood complaint and audit findings. Withholding such information has no legal basis; on the contrary, disclosing it is crucial to ensure that the Appellant is not being made a scapegoat for others' wrongdoing. By denying these records, the Respondent has kept the Appellant in the dark about the very facts that underpin the drastic actions taken against him.
Selective Targeting of Appellant and Need for Accountability: The Appellant submits that he has been singled out and penalized in an unfair manner. Despite having no role in the financial misconduct, he was directed to bear an enormous financial burden (15 lakhs). Meanwhile, the main perpetrator, Mr. N.K. Jetli (the ex-President who ostensibly oversaw the irregular expenditure), could not be held accountable due to his demise. This scenario raises a legitimate concern that the real facts may have been suppressed and the Appellant made a convenient target to recover losses, without proper investigation. The information requested under RTI would help expose whether due process was followed e.g., whether an FIR or criminal complaint was ever contemplated against the culprits, what the special audits revealed, and whether the RCS took appropriate action on those findings. The failure of the RCS and its Deputy Registrar to pursue any criminal action speaks volumes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 1, has clearly held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a case. Here, the audit reports and the complaint by Sh. S.K. Sood undoubtedly disclosed cognizable offences (such as criminal breach of trust, cheating or fraud involving society funds), yet the Page 9 of 15 Deputy Registrar/Registrar did not lodge any FIR, in flagrant disregard of the law declared by the Supreme Court. This dereliction of duty suggests an attempt to shield the wrongdoers or a lack of seriousness in tackling corruption. It is in this context that the PIO's refusal to divulge information acquires a malafide tinge by keeping the relevant documents hidden, the office of RCS effectively prevented scrutiny of its (in)actions and the dubious circumstances under which the Appellant was made solely liable. Such conduct by a public authority defeats both the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and the principles of accountability and rule of law. The Appellant urges that this Hon'ble Commission take cognizance of these facts: transparency is the first step towards justice in this matter, and the information sought should have been disclosed suo motu by the RCS given the serious allegations. Instead, the RCS's PIO chose opacity, warranting the Commission's intervention.
Deputy Registrar's Failure to Act Breach of Public Duty: The Appellant also underscores that the Deputy Registrar (Arbitration), who was responsible for appointing the arbitrator and overseeing the society's dispute, failed to act in accordance with both the RTI Act and the Supreme Court's binding judgment in Lalita Kumari. As elaborated, there was a statutory duty to file an FIR once cognizable offences came to light - the Deputy Registrar's inaction on this front is indefensible in law. Furthermore, as the First Appellate Authority (or at least as a senior officer in the chain), the Deputy Registrar was obliged to ensure the PIO under him complied with the RTI Act's requirements and the FAA order. The fact that the information still remains undisclosed implies a systemic failure or willful neglect by the officials concerned. This Hon'ble Commission is empowered under Section 19(8) to require the public authority to take remedial steps to prevent such failures in future. The connivance or apathy of the Deputy Registrar in both withholding information and ignoring the Supreme Court's directions has caused the Appellant severe hardship and is against public interest. In view of the above grounds, the Appellant submits that the Respondent PIO's actions are indefensible. The denial of information was without any reasonable cause and in bad faith, attracting the consequences under the RTI Act. The Appellant has been harassed and handicapped in pursuing justice due to this lack of information. It is only through the intervention of this Hon'ble Commission that the truth can be brought out and the Appellant's rights vindicated.
Prayer for Relief:
In light of the foregoing facts and grounds, the Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Central Information Commission may be pleased to grant the following relief:Page 10 of 15
1. Direct the Respondent PIO to provide complete information forthwith:
Specifically, all information and documents enumerated in the RTI application dated 08.01.2024 should be furnished to the Appellant immediately, free of charge as the time for response has long expired (per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act). This includes but is not limited to certified copies of all requested records (bills, vouchers, measurements of works, audit reports for 2016-19, special audit report 2015-2019 and related sanctions/acceptance, minutes of meetings 2015-
18, calculation formulas, inventory details, costs of installations, AGM report 2011 of 30 lakhs, names and reports of the concerned architect and auditor, and the S.K. Sood complaint along with any action taken). If certain information (like audit reports) is held by a different branch or officer, the Commission may direct the PIO and the public authority to coordinate with that branch to collect and deliver the information to the Appellant, rather than asking the Appellant to chase different offices.
2. Enforce the First Appellate Authority's order and ensure compliance: The Commission may issue appropriate orders under Section 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act to require the public authority (Office of RCS) to comply with the RTI Act scrupulously, including honoring the decisions of the FAA. In the present case, the FAA's order dated 12-06-2024 (Annexure C) should be given effect by the Respondent without any further delay. The Commission may also consider admonishing the concerned officers for their failure to implement the said order so far.
3. Impose Penalty on the Erring PIO under Section 20(1): The Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Commission invoke its powers under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to levy maximum penalty on the Respondent PIO for the delay and malafide denial of information. The PIO had no reasonable cause to refuse the requested information; his actions were in breach of multiple provisions of the Act, as detailed above. The delay since the RTI filing (over 18 months) is inordinate and attributable to the PIO's conduct. A penalty of *250 per day may be imposed from the date the information became due (08-02-2024, i.e. 30 days after RTI filing) until the date the information is finally provided, subject to the maximum of ₹25,000 as per law. Such a penalty is necessary in this case to enforce accountability and deter any indifference towards RTI obligations.
4. Recommend Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2)): In view of the apparent persistent negligence and defiance by the PIO (and possibly other officials of the public authority), the Commission may recommend to the competent authority of the Respondent public authority that appropriate disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the officer concerned. The PIO's failure has not only caused hardship to the Appellant but also reflects poorly on the public authority's Page 11 of 15 transparency practices. A recommendation under Section 20(2) is warranted to underline the seriousness of the lapse.
5. Order Compensation to the Appellant (Section 19(8)(b)): The Hon'ble Commission is empowered to award compensation to the complainant/appellant for any loss or detriment suffered due to the denial of information. The Appellant has suffered significant detriment: he has been harassed, made to run from pillar to post, and has incurred expenses in pursuing the appeals, all while crucial information that could establish his innocence and liability was kept from him. The mental agony and financial burden placed on him (including the 15 lakhs he had to pay under the arbitral award) have been aggravated by the opacity of the Respondent. The Commission may therefore consider awarding a reasonable compensation to the Appellant for the detriment caused as a token of restorative justice under Section 19(8)(b).
6. Advisory for Compliance with Law and Transparency: The Appellant also prays that the Commission issue an advisory or direction to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Delhi) to uphold transparency and the rule of law in matters of cooperative society oversight. In particular, the Commission may recommend that the public authority duly consider the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari regarding mandatory FIRs in cases of cognizable offences, especially in cases of large-scale financial irregularities in societies, so that such serious issues are not handled solely as internal arbitrations without criminal investigation. While the Commission's remit is information disclosure, shining a light on such issues serves the larger public interest. Directions may also be given to sensitize PIOs and First Appellate Authorities in the RCS office about their duties for instance, to avoid unjustified transfer of RTI applicants from one office to another in violation of Section 6(3), and to ensure that affected persons receive reasons for decisions as required by Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. Implementing these measures will help prevent future RTI violations and promote a culture of transparency in the department.
7. Any other order or relief as the Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including but not limited to ensuring full compliance with the RTI Act by the Respondent public authority and addressing the grievances raised by the Appellant. The Appellant trusts the wisdom of this Commission to mould the relief appropriately to do complete justice in this matter."
8. On being queried by the Commission as to when the order of FAA has been complied, the Respondent tendered his apology by stating that it has not been complied with. However, he has brought the copies of audit report Page 12 of 15 and handed over the same to the Complainant which is taken on record. He volunteered to facilitate inspection of relevant records to the Complainant in the Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd through himself or his authorized representative on a mutually agreed date and time.
Decision
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that instant case is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC
864.
10. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon close scrutiny records it is observed that Respondent had made an effort to provide a timely and reasonable reply through online RTI portal on 29.01.2024 which is in the spirit of the RTI Act.
11. Nonetheless, the Commission at the outset is unhappy with the fact that order of the FAA for giving revised reply has not been complied by the PIO till date. Although, a mala fide or deliberate intention of the erring PIO does not appear in the facts of the instant case but the casual approach of such officers attract severe admonition of the Commission.
12. However, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIO due to the fact that adequate reply has been given by the Respondent and the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaint upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of Page 13 of 15 the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
13. No mala-fide is established on part of the PIO in this case. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"...61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot Page 6 of 9 automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
14. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.
15. Yet, the Respondent is advised to fulfil his commitments in a timely manner.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Page 14 of 15 (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Old Court Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001 Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)