Central Information Commission
S K T Sherman vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DDATY/C/2023/148629
S K T Sherman ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asst. Engineer (Bldg.) - L&I,
Delhi Development Authority C-1/204,
2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi -110023. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.06.2024
Date of Decision : 13.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 31.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 05.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.12.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1. "As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file noting's, daily correspondence and daily progress Page 1 of 9 reports of actions taken against the applicant's following complaints concerning illegal/unauthorized extension of the Kitchen Window in a Cooperative Society against approved Building Design in a high Seismic zone area i.e. Dwarka Sector-4.
S.No. Date Complaint Number/ ID 1. 03/05/2023 GRV/NFZ/2023/190697 2. 29/05/2023 20230529000000475059 3. 29/05/2023 20230529000000475050 4. 05/06/2023 20230605000000480017
2. As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of the permission/ authorization provided by the MCD to the following residents to alter or make structural changes to their Flats against the approved Building Design under Cooperative Societies.
a) Sh. Vikas Saini, Flat No B-46, Sri Ram CGHS (Apartments) Ltd. Plot No.32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078
b) Sh. Ankit Dhanda, Flat No B-50, Sri Ram CGHS (Apartments) Ltd. Plot No.32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078
c) Sh. Sandeep Varshney, Flat No B-58, Sri Ram CGHS (Apartments) Ltd. Plot No.32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078.
3. As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of the Law/Rule as per which such alteration/ structural changes are allowed to the above-mentioned owners of the Flats.
4. Kindly provide to the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons and the complete text with a complete reference to specific rules applicable to your public authority as per which No action has been initiated against the above-mentioned complaints of the applicant for the illegal structural changes and extensions.
5. As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of Notices to dismantle the illegal extension/ structures has been issued to the above-mentioned culprits against the applicant's complaints.
6. As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of the inquiry reports submitted by the officer assigned against the above- mentioned applicants' complaints to the Higher Authority.
7. Kindly provide to the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons and the complete text with a complete reference to specific rules applicable to your public authority as per which No order of demolition of illegal/unauthorized construction has been issued so far.
Page 2 of 98. Kindly provide to the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons and the complete text with a complete reference to specific rules applicable to your public authority as per which No inquiry or inspection has been conducted by MCD in Sri Ram CGHS ltd., Plot No. 32, Sector- 4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 for ongoing or old illegal extensions/structural changes against the approved designed as per applicable law for Cooperative Housing Complex.
9. As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to applicant certified copies of the Names and Official Designation with whom the applicant's above- mentioned complaints were lying during the period along with date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her.
10. Kindly provide to the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons and the complete text with a complete reference to specific rules applicable to your public authority as per which no disciplinary actions have been instantiated against the officer assigned to the applicant's above-mentioned complaints for his dereliction of duty and delay in necessary action.
11. As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to the applicant the official designation and office address of the Nodal officer to whom Notice u/s 80 of CPC be sent for further legal actions if needed.
Kindly send me all intimation & information by speed/registered post. I am ready to pay additional charges as per the rules. It is also pertinent to note that it is mandatory as per RTI Act 2005 to mention the number of pages and the subsequent amount in the reply.
If the information is not with you, please forward this application to the appropriate Public Information Officer, under intimation to me as per section (6)(3) of RTI Act 2005. It is important to understand here that the appellant has not asked for an inspection but rather asked for a certified copy of the information and pressurizing for inspection or making the inspection as a precondition for providing the information would be considered as mala-fidely denial of information."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 31.07.2023 by stating as under -
"May please refer to your above mentioned RTI Application under reference transferred to this office by PIO/AD/Nodal Branch RTI vide letter No. F11 (26627)23/RTI/DDA/1384 dt. 18/07/2023. It is informed that "only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exits and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of the Public Authority. The Page 3 of 9 Public Information Officer is not supposed to create the information or to interpret the information so solve the problems raised by the applications or to furnish replies to hypothetical question."
In this regard your RTI Application has been examined and it is to state that the concerned building file has been traced from records and the matter is in examination..."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2023. The FAA's order is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
The Commission is in receipt of a written submission dated 30.05.2024 from the Complainant, contents of the same are reproduced below -
"1. It is humbly submitted that the instant written submission along with letter of Authority in favour of my son Sh. Yogesh Sherman to represent me on my behalf be taken on record and read in conjunction with the submissions previously tendered by the Complainant and Appellant along with his second appeal. In the interest of brevity, the Appellant/Complainant refrains from reiterating the contents therein. BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE:
a. The appellant respectfully submits that he filed an RTI application concerning his complaints about illegal extensions and encroachments that violated the approved design of the group housing society to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Subsequently, through his RTI application, the appellant sought information regarding the actions taken by the MCD in response to his complaints b. That upon receiving the RTI application, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) forwarded the same to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, stating that they did not possess the requisite authority to address the matter.
That subsequently, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in their response to the RTI application, denied providing any information to the appellant on vague and false pretexts, and in a non-serious manner following point would further confirm the aversions raised by the Appellant and complainant
1. ALLEGED CORRUPTION:
Page 4 of 9That once the RTI application, along with the appellant's complaints, was forwarded to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the DDA, instead of performing an inspection or investigation of the building regarding the complaints and concerns raised by the appellant, dismissed the entire RTI in a vague manner.
This collusion between the wrongdoers and the DDA/Public Information Officer (PIO) appears to be aimed at concealing the irregularities and illegalities in the society's infrastructure, unlawful structural changes, electrical wirings, and illegal extensions in violation of the Model Building Bye-laws applicable to Cooperative Group Housing Societies.
2. INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE /INCOMPETENCE WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY OF RESIDENTS Given that the matter pertains to the safety of residents due to violations of building bylaws and illegal extensions/encroachments in Dwarka, which is situated in a highly sensitive seismic zone, the negligence or incompetence exhibited by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is of grave concern and warrants serious action. The safety risks posed by these structural irregularities are significant, and the DDA/Public Information Officer (PIO) cannot evade their responsibility by dismissing the appellant's legitimate queries as "hypothetical questions."
The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to justify how the information sought under paragraphs 2-11 could be deemed "hypothetical,"
particularly considering that the information pertains to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which is the sole authority responsible for providing such information. The failure to address this crucial point further highlights the lack of transparency and accountability in the handling of the appellant's requests under the RTI Act.
The appellant's request for information is grounded in genuine concerns for public safety and adherence to the Model Building Bye-laws, and thus, the DDA/PIO is obligated to provide the requisite information transparently and promptly.
3. DENIAL OF INFORMATION CONFIRMING PIO'S BIASED TOWARDS CULPRITS AND PROTECTION OF CORRUPT OFFICIALS WITHIN DDA:
Page 5 of 9The information sought under Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act pertains to the obligation of public authorities to provide rationales for their significant administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the individuals affected by such decisions. The complicity on the part of the Public Information Officer (PIO) in perpetuating corrupt practices is evident.
The lack of a reply to the information sought under Section 4(1)(d) confirms that the PIO, in an attempt to conceal corruption within the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and protect the culprits, failed to provide any response without the required justifications. Furthermore, the order from the First Appellate Authority (FAA) corroborates the extent of corruption, necessitating disciplinary action by the Anti- Corruption Branch along with disciplinary measures under the Central Civil Services (CCS) Conduct Rules and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. MOCKERY OF BUILDING BYE LAWS BY DDA OFFICIALS That the forwarding of the RTI application by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) confirms that the information concerning illegal extensions and encroachments by certain individuals, whose names and addresses were already provided by the appellant in his RTI application, was indeed shared with the DDA. Instead of initiating an inquiry, inspection, or investigation, the DDA officials focused on finding loopholes to deny action against the culprits. This was done to deny the information sought under the RTI Act, thereby making a mockery of the Model Building Bye- laws and allowing illegal and substandard extensions/encroachments by the culprits.
5. FAILED TO PROVIDE RELVANCE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THEIR REPLY The First Appellate Authority (FAA), with deliberate intent, disregarded the reply/complaint letters dated 22/8/2023 and 08/06/2023 (copies enclosed with the Second Appeal) from the appellant. These were submitted via email and speed post, sharing all relevant information regarding illegal encroachment, structural alterations, and extensions, particularly concerning the high seismic zone area of Dwarka, New Delhi. Despite this comprehensive submission, the FAA, driven by false pride, issued a non-speaking order without even granting a personal hearing. This action confirms the suspicion of corruption or the concealment of wrongdoing by a few members of the society.
Page 6 of 96. FAILED TO ACT AS PER THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS OF THE PIO UNDER SECTION 5(4) AND 5(5) OF THE RTI ACT:
It is of paramount importance to underscore that, as stipulated within the parameters delineated in Subsections 4 and 5 of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO), to whom RTI application is filed he is duty bound to collate the information and provide the information to the applicant within the time limit prescribe under RTI Act.
PRAYER
1. An order for investigation by the Anti-Corruption Branch of Delhi against both the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the Public Information Officer (PIO) should be issued. This action is warranted due to the apparent collusion between the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the culprits, endangering the lives of residents in multistory buildings due to the greed of a few individuals. It is imperative that an independent and unbiased entity, such as the Anti- Corruption Branch of Delhi, conducts the investigation to ensure transparency and impartiality in the process.
2. Order to Initiate disciplinary actions against the Public Information Officer (PIO) in accordance with the Central Civil Services (CCS) Conduct Rules. Recommend appropriate measures for potential removal or dismissal as outlined in the provisions of Fundamental Rules (FR) 56(j)/(1) and Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972. Such actions are necessary to uphold the integrity of the DDA and to address the misconduct and negligence demonstrated by the PIO in this matter.
3. Order to Impose penalties on the Public Information Officer (PIO) in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Guidance on the matter can be sought from the judgment dated 28-04- 2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 3845/2007 Mujibur Rehman v/s CIC. This step is essential to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability outlined in the RTI Act and to deter future instances of non-compliance with its provisions.
4. To order exemplary compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, the appellant should be compensated with Rs. 200,000/- (Two Lacs) for the mental trauma, agony, humiliation, and suffering he has endured due to the mala-fide denial of information by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA), which occurred within Page 7 of 9 the prescribed time limit and resulted in a breach of the appellant's rights. This compensation is warranted to acknowledge and address the significant harm caused to the appellant as a result of their actions.
5. Disciplinary action be initiated against the PIO and FAA in accordance with Section 20(2) of the RTI Act for their failure to comply with the law. This action is mandated by the decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in CIC/AT/A/2007/01502 dated 24th October 2008. Complaint No.
6. Hon'ble Commission may order making an adverse entry in the service book/annual appraisal report of the concerned PIO & FAA for defying act of the parliament.
7. In case of non-availability of information, PIO be ordered to file a notarized affidavit to this effect with Hon'ble Commission, with self- attested photocopy to the appellant.
8. As per Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, the PIO should now provide the appellant with the information "FREE OF CHARGE" ..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by Shri Yogesh Sherman present in person. Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, AE (I/c.)/ PIO Building, L& I present in person.
The Complainant's representative pleaded that no information has been received from the Respondent till date.
A written submission dated 04.06.2024 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Respondent reiterated the contents of his written submission wherein he inter alia stated as under -
"Reply of the said RTI has already been given by the Building Department DDA vide letter dated 31.07.2023."
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding current status, the Respondent explained that certain deviations were noted on the site in terms Page 8 of 9 of Section 31 of the DDA Act and inquiry with hearing for the purpose of appropriate action were initiated in accordance with DDA Act. He volunteered to intimate the updated status to the Complainant.
Decision The Commission after adverting to facts and circumstances and perusal of records observes that instant matter is a complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission finds that a timely reply has been given by the respondent. No mala-fide is established on the part of the PIO in this case. The Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
However, as per commitment made by the Respondent during the hearing, he is advised, in the true spirit of the RTI Act, to provide a revised reply intimating the updated status of the subject under reference to the Complainant within a time bound manner.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Delhi Development Authority C-1/204, 2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi - 110023.Page 9 of 9
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)