Central Information Commission
Raj Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee on 29 September, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DPCCM/A/2022/100880 -UM
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE,
DEPTT. OF ENVIRONMENT, GNCTD,
5TH FLOOR, ISBT BUILDING,
KASHMEERE GATE, DELHI - 110 006
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.09.2022
Date of Decision : 29.09.2022
Date of RTI application 19.03.2021
CPIO's response 06.11.2021
Date of the First Appeal 17.11.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 30.11.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.01.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
The CPIO vide letter dated 06.11.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 30.11.2021, upheld the reply of the CPIO.Page 1 of 3
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr Pankaj PS Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI submitted that he purchased 2500 Sq. Yard land from Mr. Satya Prakash Rana, EX MLA and his mother Smt. Syam kaur to develop a 200 trees on 2500 sq feet of area on that land. The Appellant submitted that he spent 20 lakh rupees to make a ridge on that area. He alleged that Mr. Satya Prakash in connivance with other corrupt and incompetent officers had cut, stole and destroyed the trees of the ridge in a span of 3 years from 2014 to 2017 gradually inspite of his regular complaints and now a building has been constructed on that land . The Appellant also stated that Mr. Satya Prakash tried several times to encroach his property on regular basis and had been caught red handed by the police authority cutting the trees of the ridge. He further stated that two concrete towers have been built on that land making the life of the villagers of Shahbad Mohammadpur hell and disturbing nearby airport area just for his personal greed on which so far no action has been taken so far. The Appellant requested the commission to provide him sought information that would help him in the case he filed in the court against this injustice. The Respondent submitted that the RTI application was not pertains to Delhi Pollution Control Board and the Respondent transferred the file to PIO Secretary Environment and Forest Room No. C-602 Level 6 C Wing Delhi Secretariat.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO Secretary Environment and Forest Room No. C-602 level 6 C wing Delhi Secretariat to furnish point wise reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
Further the Commission finds weight in the deposition of the Appellant produced in the hearing and observes that there is an attempt on the part of the Respondent to hide the information from the Appellant. The Commission further observes that the basic objective of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the Page 2 of 3 working of the Public Authorities, eradicate corruption, and to make our democracy work for the people in real sense. But in the present case the CPIO has acted with insensitivity overlooking the seriousness of the case and furnished a reply merely for the sake of formality. Therefore the Commission instructs the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken against them for this misconduct and negligence in providing the information which constitutes serious violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and also directs him to explain why a penalty of Rs. 10000/- should not be imposed on him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission directs the Principal Secretary Environment and Forest to take the responsibility and cooperate with the CPIO in furnishing the information as per the extant guidelines of the RTI Act.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 29.09.2022 Page 3 of 3