Central Information Commission
Anil Dutt Sharma vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 16 March, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No.: CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167946
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167947
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167949
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167950
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172922
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172923
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172924
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172926
CIC/SDMCN/A/2018/172927
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/158654
CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/173864
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167945
Anil Dutt Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,
Executive Engineer-(Build.-I)/Central,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building-I
Department, Central Zone,Shiv Mandir Marg,
Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024.
PIO,
Executive Engineer-(Bldg.-I) /South Zone,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building
Department, South Zone, Aurobindo Marg, Green
Park, New Delhi-110016
PIO,
Executive Engineer-(Bldg.)-I/Shah.South,
East Delhi MunicipalCorporation, Building
Department-I, Shah. South Zone, 5th Floor,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi-110032.
1|Page
PIO,
Executive Engineer-(Bldg)/HQ-I, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building Department/Headquarters, 8thFloor,
E-Wing, Dr. S.P.M.Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. Public Information Officer under RTI
Executive Engineer-(Build.-I)/Central, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building-I Department, Central Zone, Shiv Mandir
Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, NewDelhi-110024.
3. Public Information Officer under RTI
Executive Engineer-(Build.-II)/Central, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building-II Department, Central Zone, Shiv Mandir
Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, NewDelhi-110024.
4. Public Information Officer under RTI
Executive Engineer-(Bldg.-I)/West Zone, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building Department, West Zone, Vishal Enclave,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.
5. Public Information Officer under RTI
Executive Engineer-(Bldg.-I) /South Zone, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building Department, South Zone, Aurobindo Marg,
Green Park, New Delhi-110016.
6. Public Information Officer under RTI
Executive Engineer-(Bldg.-II)/ South Zone, South Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building-II Department, South Zone, Aurobindo Marg, Green
Park, New Delhi-110016.
7. Public Information Officer under RTI
Executive Engineer-(Bldg)/Najafgarh, South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Building Department, Najafgarh Zone, Main Zonal Building, Room No.-119
& 121, 1st Floor, Near Dhansa Stand, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
8. Public Information Officer under RTI
Senior Town Planner/HQ, SouthDelhi Municipal
Corporation, Town Planning Department/Headquarters, 21st
Floor, E-Wing, Dr. S.P.M.Civic Centre, Minto Road, New
Delhi-110002
... ितवादीगण/Respondent
2|Page
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167946 CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167947
RTI application filed on : 16-07-2018 16-07-2018
CPIO replied on : 27-08-2018 27-08-2018
First appeal filed on : 10-09-2018 10-09-2018
First Appellate Authority : 15-10-2018 15-10-2018
order
Second Appeal received : 16-11-2018 16-11-2018
at CIC
Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
Date of Decision : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167949 CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167950
RTI application filed on : 25-06-2018 16-07-2018
CPIO replied on : 24-07-2018 27-08-2018
First appeal filed on : 27-07-2018 10-09-2018
First Appellate Authority : Not on record 15-10-2018
order
Second Appeal received : 16-11-2018 16-11-2018
at CIC
Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
Date of Decision : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172922 CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172923
RTI application filed on : 20-07-2018 18-12-2017
CPIO replied on : 20-09-2018 20-09-2018
First appeal filed on : 20-10-2018 20-10-2018
First Appellate Authority : 15-11-2018 15-11-2018
order
Second Appeal received : 18-12-2018 18-12-2018
at CIC
Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
Date of Decision : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172924 CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172926
RTI application filed on : 25-09-2018 30-06-2018
CPIO replied on : 20-09-2018 20-09-2018
First appeal filed on : 20-10-2018 20-10-2018
3|Page
First Appellate Authority : 15-11-2018 15-11-2018
order
Second Appeal received : 18-12-2018 18-12-2018
at CIC
Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
Date of Decision : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
CIC/SDMCN/A/2018/172927 CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/158654
RTI application filed on : 20-07-2018 16-05-2018
CPIO replied on : 29-08-2018 18-07-2018
First appeal filed on : 20-10-2018 21-07-2018
First Appellate Authority : 15-11-2018 16-08-2018
order
Second Appeal received : 18-12-2018 26-09-2018
at CIC
Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
Date of Decision : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/173864 CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167945
RTI application filed on : 30-08-2018 18-12-2017
CPIO replied on : 22-10-2018 20-09-2018
First appeal filed on : 09-11-2018 20-10-2018
First Appellate Authority : 03-12-2018 15-11-2018
order
Second Appeal received : 24-12-2018 18-12-2018
at CIC
Date of Hearing : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
Date of Decision : 11-03-2021 11-03-2021
lwpuk vk;qDr: Jh हीरालाल साम रया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Note: The above referred appeals are clubbed together as they are
preferred by the same appellant. Since the issues involved in the present
appeals are similar in nature, the Commission proposes to adjudicate upon
them together through the present order.
4|Page
Order
Commission after perusal of case records observes that above referred batch of
appeals are referred by Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma who seems to be on a mission of
conducting the performance audit of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In
doing so, he has filed numerous RTI Applications and from those 12 has been
taken up for adjudication. It is pertinent to mention that this bench of the
Commission has already disposed of 76 second appeals of the Appellant on
similar issues via Common order dated 05.05.2017 wherein similar observations
were enumerated at length. It is also pertinent to mention that each one of the
instant RTI Applications while seeking vast amount of information aims at
evaluation of the performance of public authority in checking the menace of
unauthorized construction.
Information soughtin the referred appeals :
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167946) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 03 points information:
PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.) South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 27-08-2018.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-09-2018. The FAA, vide order dated 15-10-2018, observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
5|Page (CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167947) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 03 points information:
PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.) South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 27-08-2018 .
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-09-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-10-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167949) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 07 points information:
1. Please inform about the action which is taken upon receipt of the complaints from the police regarding un-authorized constructions and the timeline within which action is taken. (Reference WP(c) 9668/17)
2. Please inform the addresses of the properties against which sealing orders were passed but properties did not seal in accordance with the directions passed by the Dy. Commissioner of the Zone.
3. Inform the name of the concerned AE(B) or any other concerned officers having pending compliance of sealing orders.
Etc. PIO, vide letter dated 24.07.2018, furnished information to the Appellant as under:
6|Page Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24-07-2018 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167950) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 07 points information related to Building Department of the East, North and South DMC:
1. Please inform total no. of properties sanctioned under section 336 DMC Act which were constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan and subsequently booked during 01-05-2018 to 15-07-2018 and inform total no. of properties booked but have not sanctioned. Please provide copy of record contained such details.
2. Please inform details of properties selected for random test check to the extent of 20% of the cases from the list of sanctioned issued under section 336 DMC Act.
3. Inform total no. of selected case from the sanctioned case file, the concerned Executive Engineer or Assistant Engineer had fix up the time of inspection of the site required within 60 days or otherwise.
Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.)-I, Central Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 27-08-2018 stating that the requisite information is not available in the office in the form it is being sought.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-09-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-10-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
7|Page (CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172922) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 02 points information:
1. Please inform addresses of sanctioned building which inspections were required to be conducted by the incumbent JE(B), AE(B) and EE(B) but not available on record due to their dereliction of duty.
i. Provide copy of record which contained mechanism/norms/guidelines adopted to check the deviation of the building referred in point no. "A".
ii. If available on record, then provide copy of inspection reports and if not avaialble on record then inform the name of the delinquent officers.
2. Provide copy of documents which proves that the fact of inspection is not conducted by concerned officers is known to the senior officers.
PIO, Office Incharge (Bldg.), South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 20-09-2018 stating that:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-10-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172923) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 07 points information regarding unauthorized construction from since 1st January 2006 to latest:
8|Page Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.) South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 20-09-2018 stating that:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-10-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Written submissions have been received from the Appellant, vide letter dated 04.03.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172924) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 05 points information:
9|Page
1. Please inform address of all properties checked by the officer/Sh. Sanjay and Sh. Ojha (Shahadra North), Sh. Dev Kumar and Sh. Aquil Ahmad (South Zone), Sh. Ninesh Nagar and Sh. R.R. Meena (Central Zone), Sh.
Ajay Gautam (Najafgarh Zone) etc. in compliance of direction referred in the order No. O-33011/1/2006-DD.I dated 25.04.2018 issued by Ministry of housing and urban affairs at clause II after issuance of the order.
2. Inform total no. of properties found authorized under DMC Act out of the properties against which site plan were sanctioned.
3. Inform the address of the properties which were found constructed without sanction.
Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.) South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 20-09-2018 stating that:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-10-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172926) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 09 points information:
1. Please inform the name of the JE(B), AE(B) and EE(B) of the Zone were working in 2018.
2. Please inform the name of the authorized/concerned officers and its designation who were empowered to collect penalty form the aspirant of regularization of properties under section 337(4) read with section 461 DMC Act in the year of 2018.
3. Inform address of properties regularized in 2018.
4. Inform the name of the concerned officer guilty for non-recovering penalty under section 337(4).
Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.), South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 20-09-2018 stating that:
10 | P a g e Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-10-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
(CIC/SDMCN/A/2018/172927) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 02 points information:
PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.) South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 29-08-2018 stating that:
11 | P a g e Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-10-2018. The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2018 directed the PIO to furnish complete, specific, revised reply/information to the appellant within stipulated time period.
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant, vide letter dated
04.03.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/158654) Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 06 points information:
1. Name of the E.E. Building of all 12 Zones.
2. Inform total no. of properties against which sealing was passed but after passing 3 months said property did not seal.
3. Please inform name of the concerned A.E. (Building) whose responsibility was to seal the property.
4. Inform total no. of properties which the EE(B) did not pursue for taking action under section 345A and 466A DMC Act.
Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.), South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 18-07-2018 stating that:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21-07-2018. The FAA vide order dated 16-08-2018 directed the PIO to provide the complete and correct information to the appellant within stipulated time period.
(CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/173864) Information sought:
12 | P a g e The Appellant sought following 09 points information:
1. Inform the form in which such properties against which action is pending under DMC Act are not maintained separately from those properties against which action under DMC Act has been taken.
2. Inform total no. of properties against which action under DMC Act was pending on the date when incumbent EE(B) has joint the present office and provide the photo copy of 10 previous pages of the book in which construction reports received from the police is diarized and action taken record.
3. Please inform total no. of sanctioned properties in which police has reported ongoing construction during May to August 2018.
Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.), South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 22-10-2018 stating that:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09-11-2018. The FAA vide order dated 03-12-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Written submissions has been received from PIO, Executive Engineer (Building), Shahdara (South) Zone, EDMC, vide letter dated 26.02.2021, 13 | P a g e (CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167945) The Appellant sought following 07 points information regarding unauthorized construction from since 1st January 2006 to latest:
Etc. PIO, Office In-charge (Bldg.) South Zone, Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 12-07-2018, stating that:
14 | P a g e Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21-07-2018. The FAA vide order dated 21-08-2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Written submission has been received from PIO, Executive Engineer (Building), Nazafgarh Zone, SDMC, vide letter dated 24.02.2021, as under:
15 | P a g e The relevant facts emerging during the hearing are mentioned below:
Appellant, Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma was present in person. Appellant has submitted a common written submission dated 04.03.2021 along with an application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to summon the documents for the perusal of the Commission. Same is perused and taken on record.
Appellant submissions during the hearing:
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with either of the replies of the PIO as no information sought was provided. He further alleged that responses received from the PIOs were mere forwarding letters and they have not provided the information directly to him which is a violation of their duties as per RTI Act.
Appellant further vehemently insisted on stating the factual matrix of the cases to which Commission interjected and remarked that Appellant must confine himself to his RTI Applications and state the specific information he desires.
Appellant objected in an extremely contemptuous manner and demanded that all his submissions must be heard.
Commission cautioned the appellant to steer clear of such a behaviour and confine himself to the information sought under RTI Act.
Appellant was unable to express his dissatisfaction with regards to specific queries and stated that Commission must take strong actions against the erring PIOs .
The Respondents submissions during the hearing (CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167946) The following were present: -
Respondent: Manish Huria AE (B), O/o EE(B),Central, South Delhi MunicipalCorporation, Building-IDepartment, Central Zone, present in person.
PIO submitted that relevant information sought was not available on record and same was categorically informed to the appellant.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167947) The following were present: -
16 | P a g e Respondent: Manish Huria AE (B)& Rep. of PIO, O/o EE(B), Central, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building-I Department, Central Zone, present in person.
Rep. of PIO submitted during hearing that relevant information as available on record has been provided to the appellant.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167949) Respondent: Manish Huria AE (B)& Rep. of PIO, O/o EE(B), Central, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building-I Department, Central Zone, present in person.
Rep. of PIO submitted during hearing that relevant information as available on record has been provided to the appellant.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167950) The following were present: -
Respondent: Manish Huria AE (B)& Rep. of PIO, O/o EE(B), Central, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building-I Department, Central Zone, present in person.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172922) The following were present: -
Respondent: Rajeev Kumar Singh, ASO & Rep. of PIO, Executive Engineer- (Bldg.-I) /South Zone, South Delh Municipal Corporation, Building Department, South Zone, present in person.
Rep. of the PIO submitted that available and relevant information has been provided and there is no additional information required to be submitted.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172923) The following were present: -
Respondent: Rajeev Kumar Singh, ASO & Rep. of PIO, Executive Engineer- (Bldg.-I) /South Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building Department, South Zone, present in person.
Rep. of the PIO submitted that available and relevant information has been provided and there is no additional information required to be submitted.
17 | P a g e (CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172924) The following were present: -
Respondent: Rajeev Kumar Singh, ASO & Rep. of PIO, Executive Engineer- (Bldg.-I) /South Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building Department, South Zone, present in person.
Rep. of the PIO submitted that available and relevant information has been provided and there is no additional information required to be submitted.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172926) The following were present: -
Respondent: not present.
(CIC/SDMCN/A/2018/172927) The following were present: -
Respondent : Rajeev Kumar Singh, ASO & Rep. of PIO, Executive Engineer- (Bldg.-I) /South Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building Department, South Zone, present in person.
Rep. of the PIO submitted that available and relevant information has been provided and there is no additional information required to be submitted.
Appellant interjected to state that incomplete reply has been provided by the PIO.
Rep. Of PIO submitted that inadvertently the no. of complaint was left blank in response to para 1, however, upon Commission instance PIO provided the corrected information to the appellant.
(CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/158654) The following were present: -
Respondent: not present (CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/173864) The following were present: -
18 | P a g e Respondent: S D Tomar, EE(B) & PIO, Executive Engineer-(Bldg.)-I/Shah, South, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building Department-I, Shah, present in person.
PIO submitted that relevant information sought was not available on record and same was categorically informed to the appellant.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167945) The following were present: -
Respondent: Abhay Kumar, AE(B) WZ, Vikas Gupta (AE)(B), Bharat Bhushan, STP & PIO, BS Gupta, AE(B) & HS Meena EE(B), present in person.
PIOs submitted during hearing that relevant information as available on record has been provided to the appellant.
Observation:
At the outset Commission observes that present RTI applications are aimed to extract every possible information from the public authority regarding all SE, EE, AE & JE and is akin to conducting a performance audit. The queries solicit voluminous information and each one of them tends to dig out metadata.
Therefore, Commission is irked by the said conduct of the Appellant in using the RTI channel in such manner wherein most of the information sought by him is either voluminous, hypothetical or vague in nature and same are sought in extremely cumbersome manner. Commission observes that disclosure of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the Respondent Authorities thereby attracting Section 7(9) and thus it was well within the right of the PIOs to call upon the appellant to inspect the record in majority of the cases. The appellant did not turn up for said inspections and thus forfeited his right to secure information.
Furthermore, Commission is aghast by the fact that the submissions and arguments raised by the appellant during the process of hearing as well as via his Written submissions are mere reiteration of the ones made by him during the proceedings of the erstwhile hearing of Commission in the matter titled Anil Dutt Sharma vs. CPIO, EDMC & Ors. order no. CIC/YA/A/2015/001404, dated
05.05.2017 It is most expedient to mention that Commission has already adjudicated upon all the submissions laid down by the appellant in the said order.
19 | P a g e The ratio laid down in order no. CIC/YA/A/2015/001404, dated 05.05.2017 is reiterated as follows :
26.The appellant during hearing has been stressing upon the same point charging the municipal authorities with not discharging their functions properly in the context of checking unauthorized constructions across the city. He states that the civic authorities do not exercise their powers under Chapter XVI of the MCD Act and do not act to prevent unauthorized construction in first place. He alleges that the civic authorities allow an unauthorized structure to be erected and wait till completion of construction before issuing a 'Work Stop' notice under Section 344 of the DMC Act. He further asserts that the discretionary power vesting under the Commissioner u/s 344 is not exercised evenly and rather the civic authorities employ the policy of pick & choose. He further contends that the power to seal unauthorized constructions as available under Section 345A is sparingly exercised.
27.Countering the submissions made by the appellant, it is argued by the respondents that the Building department functioning under the aegis of the respective corporation has been entrusted with the duty to check violation of construction norms. It is argued that a large area compromising of 3-5 wards has to be looked after each Junior Engineer/ Assistant Engineer and thus, due to acute dearth of manpower, the detection of instances of unauthorized construction and follow up action gets delayed. Another limb of their contention is that they often face stiff resistance from the alleged violators and general public. It is further averred that there had been instances wherein officers of respondent authorities were manhandled. It is submitted that majority of sealing & demolition drives conducted by them fail to take off or yield tangible outcome due to resistance by public, unavailability of Police assistance or due to political indulgence. The respondents before the Commission deny the allegation of lack of transparency in the process of dealing with unauthorized construction. The Commission is apprised that the concerned A.E./ J.E. with the aid of their subordinate staff keep vigil over their allocated area and record any unauthorized construction in the Construction Watch Register. All complaints addressed to civic authority including any suo motu cognizance against any unauthorized construction are thus recorded in Construction Watch Register.
20 | P a g e
28. It is also stated by the respondents that the appellant is a habitual information seeker. He has been filing relentlessly RTI queries over the last few years seeking a huge amount of information. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant is not an affected party in the strict sense, of alleged unauthorized construction at other various localities of Delhi. It is sought to be argued by the respondents that such appellants operate in a professional manner seeking information about unauthorized constructions from far off areas and there seems no public interest in seeking such information. It is submitted that the appellant makes numerous RTI applications and as such, it become very difficult to furnish reply within the statutory time frame. The respondents draw attention of the Commission to the decision in Amarjit Singh versus CPIO, East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. wherein it was held that:
It is stated by the CPIOs present during the hearing that any specific complaint highlighting unauthorized construction is put up before the Executive Engineer of the zone and is thereafter marked to the concerned area Junior Engineer for carrying out field inspection & taking appropriate steps. It is stated that if any instance of unauthorized construction is made out, a work stop notice is issued & the building is booked as per the DMC Act. The respondents strenuously assert that due to acute shortage of staff, it becomes very difficult to take prompt action on unauthorized construction. It is suggested that in most instances, the building owners move application for regularization and thus, the penal proceedings remain halted till the application is decided. The resistance put forth by people, lack of availability of Police personnel for support in carrying out demolition are other important factors involved which offer stiff resistance in carrying out the mandate of law. The Commission is quite alive of the magnitude of the problem.
The respondents state to be working under tremendous pressure being cast by habitual information seekers. The acute staff shortage is stated to be an aggravating factor. It is states that the information sought is not compiled in the form sought and the efforts to collate the same result in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this ground alone, the respondents make a forceful plea to discard the present appeals under Section 7(9).
21 | P a g e
29. The appellant asserts that the custodians of information do not clearly demarcate and hence the PIOs of the respondent authority keep transferring RTI applications using Section 6(3) of the RTI Act whereas the said provision can be invoked only in inter-public authority transfer. He argues that for accessing information within the organization, Section 5(4) needs to be invoked. The Commission concurs to a certain extent with the assertion of the appellant on this score. A PIO must resort to Section 5(4) while securing information within at least one division of the organization and Section 6(3) can be pressed only when information spans across divisions or zones. But the anomaly exists due to appointment of CPIOs for even small units or divisions within the MCD.
30. Having adjudicated all the appeals above, the Commission finds all the present appeals against the practical regime, which the RTI Act, 2005 endeavours to establish. The Commission also observes that it has already taken up the issue of repetitive and bulk RTI applications in the case of Amarjeet Singh v. CPIO, EDMC, in which it was held that:
The right to information is a cherished & formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry. The RTI tool is meant to be use diligently. Though the legislature has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the Right to seek Information, but the same is inherent. As the old age wisdom suggests, excess of anything is bad. The preamble & the relevant part of the object of the RTI Act is reproduced hereinafter:
to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
[Emphasis supplied] Thus, in the collective wisdom of legislature, the expression "practical regime" was employed to act as a guiding light while reckoning the 22 | P a g e extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying object beneath its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercise with responsibility. Reckless exercise of right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. In the facts of the present appeals, the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc is not in consonance with the object of the statute.
The Commission derives force from the ratio expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.[MANU/SC/0932/2011]. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinafter:
37. ..... The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Objects despite being pious get ridiculed if achieved through improper means. The Commission appreciates the concern exhibited by the appellant for checking the menace of unauthorized construction however finds the means adopted for the same to be avoidable. Filing a series of RTI applications and flooding the CPIOs with such queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. This Commission being creature of the RTI Act is duty bound to guard the ethos propounded by the statute. Under the circumstances, delay in replying to the RTI queries is condoned.
Presently, the Commission is discharging its adjudicatory work through 10 benches and still the average waiting time before an appellant is heard in second appeal is more than one year. As rightly said, justice delayed is justice denied. Timely dispensation of justice is the foremost essential of institutional justice. The expression 'citizens' as occurring in the preamble is employed in plural sense thereby reflecting the conferment of a collective right upon the citizens of the nation. A single person cannot usurp a collective right to the peril of all others having an identical right. Could a person be allowed to make indiscriminate & unchecked second appeals so as to clog the system of adjudication itself 23 | P a g e to the detriment of others? Wouldn't it be a criminal waste of time & resources of the Commission which has the obligation to cater to thousands of genuine information seekers facing resistance? Should this Commission remain a mute spectator to the menace of reckless litigation created in name of checking the menace of unauthorized construction? Can person seeking information in bulk be allowed to eclipse the right of other information seekers? The answer is plainly negative. The registry is directed that any further appeal by the appellant herein shall not be listed for hearing before this bench before January 2018.
31. Similar view was taken by the Commission in Rajendra Gupta v. North DMC & Ors. wherein more than 600 appeals of the appellant were clubbed and decided summarily.
32. While deciding CIC/AT/A/2008/00097, the Commission held that:
answering the elaborate and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic, imposes heavy cost on the public authority and tends to divert its resources, which brings it within the scope of section 7(9) of RTI Act.
33. Upon a careful perusal of each RTI application filed by the appellant, the Commission finds them answered by the respondents, given their capacity and resource constraints. Since the queries made by the appellants span across large area and range from 2010 to 2015 in some of the cases, the Commission finds the exercise of appellant as nothing short of 'metadata mining'. Though, the Right to Information Act as understood in popular parlance does not enjoin an information seeker to specify his / her object of seeking information; however no right is unbounded.
34. Having heard the averment from both sides, the Commission notes that the appellant while articulating his views on the working of the MCD has not provided any new information. The working of the MCD in countering unauthorized constrictions has been commented upon adversely by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court and Public Grievances Commission and even this bench of the Commission. This however, still does not give unfettered right to the appellant to bombard the public authority with so many RTI applications seeking humungous information which would necessarily divert the attention of the public authorities from their daily work. It has been observed by the Commission that in some cases it would be well nigh impossible to reply at all to such queries. The 24 | P a g e RTI regime is not meant to satisfy the insatiable demands of one individual, which would detract the public authority completely from discharging its normal functions.
Adverting to the supra-Commission observes that it appears that Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognized by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) &anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The
25 | P a g e threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of ShailSahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still."
26 | P a g e "This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
Decision:
Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, this bench of the Commission issues following directions:
In case nos.
(CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167946) & CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/158654 :
Commission in order to allay the vehement insistence of the appellant, directs the PIO to once again search the relevant information sought in the instant RTI Application and provide it to the appellant, free of cost. In case the relevant information is not traceable then PIO is directed to file an appropriate affidavit to this effect that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their office records and same couldn't be traced despite best of his efforts. The affidavit should be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant, The aforementioned direction of the Commission must be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and send a compliance report of the same to the Commission.
In case nos.
CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172926 & CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/158654:
In the absence of Respondent despite due service of the hearing notice, Commission is not in a position to ascertain whether or not any reply has been provided on the RTI Application till date. However, from the perusal of facts on record, prima-facie it appears no reply has been provided within the stipulated time frame by the PIO.
Accordingly, PIO is directed to provide available and relevant information sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order and send a compliance report of the same to the Commission.
27 | P a g e Further, Commission takes very strong exception of non attendance of PIO during the hearing of Second Appeal. In view of the prima-facie observation that no reply has been provided by the PIO on the RTI Application, within the stipulated time frame, PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct. In case, relevant information has been provided previously then PIO must provide the details of the same in the said written explanation, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. PIO is further directed to send copy of supporting documents on which he relies upon in his submission as well as copy of reply sent on the RTI Application, if any.
PIO is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him/her.
In case nos.
CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167947 + CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167949 + CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167950 + CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172922 + CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172923 + CIC/SDMCS/A/2018/172924 + CIC/SDMCN/A/2018/172927 + CIC/SDMCC/A/2018/167945 :
Commission upholds the reply of the PIO, no further action is warranted.
Notwithstanding the specific directions laid down by the Commission in the above referred appeals, no scope of further intervention is warranted with regards to the reply provided by the PIOs in the instant matter. Also, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
As regards to application for summoning of documents filed by the appellant under Order 12 Rule 8 is concerned, Commission finds is devoid of merit and rejects the same.
28 | P a g e All the referred appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसाम रया) Information Commissioner(सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 29 | P a g e