Central Information Commission
Nitin Singh vs Delhi Wakf Board on 20 February, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DWAKB/A/2023/608129
NITIN SINGH .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DELHI WAQF BOARD 5028,
ANSARI ROAD, NEAR SHROFF EYE
HOSPITAL, DARYAGANJ,
NEW DELHI - 110002 .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14-02-2024
Date of Decision : 19-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02-09-2022
CPIO replied on : 03-05-2023
First appeal filed on : 31-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 09-03-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13-02-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2022 seeking the following information regarding Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya) properties and one person namely Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri s/o Khurshid with the address: 5051, Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya), Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110002:1
"1) That whether prior consent /authorization of Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) is essentially required before filing any civil suit with regard to matters pertaining to 'Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya)' properties?
2) That whether any prior approval of Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) was requested/pursued u/s 19 of Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 filed by Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri s/o Khurshid in the 'Slum Eviction' petition filed before the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (D.U.S.I.B.) in the Honourable Court Of Sh. Purushottam Pathak, Dated: 18/04/2018 vide Case No.(s) as mentioned below:
1) Case Title :-
→ Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri v/s Surender Pal Singh Case No.:-
→ 71/CA(DUSIB)/2018
2) Case Title :-
→ Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri v/s Nirmal Singh Case No.:-
→72/CA(DUSIB)/2018
3) That whether 'Waqf Dargah Hazrat Shah Syed Sabir Ali' also known as 'Dargah Sabriya', is a Public Waqf or Waqf- Alal-Aulad Property?
4) That whether any police complaint or First Information Report (F.I.R.) is filed against Mr. Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri s/o Khurshid by Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) with Delhi Police with regard to alienation of 'Waqf Property with the address, 3688, Ward No. 11, Phool Mandi, Daryaganj, New Delhi, Pin-110002.
5) That in the event of any First Information Report (F.I.R.) / Police Complaint filed against Mr. Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri s/o Khurshid, what is the current status of enquiry and what are the steps taken against Mr. Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri with regard to his abovementioned alienation of 'Waqf Property?
6) That whether the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) has appointed or officially recognized any 'Muttawali' with regard to 'Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya)'?
7) That whether the Delhi Waqf Board has duly appointed/designated or officially recognised Mr. Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri s/o Khurshid as the 'Caretaker' of 'Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya)' properties?2
8) That whether the term 'Caretaker' is defined under the Waqt Act, 1995?
9) That is there any provision with regard to appointment of 'Caretaker in the Waqf Act, 1995 ?
10) That whether the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) has executed any Lease Deed with regard to Property No. 3687, Ward No. 11, Phool Mandi, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 in favour of Sh. Surender Pal Singh s/o Late Sh. Ram Singh, R/o A-
76, South Extension - Part II, New Delhi-110049 ?
11) That whether one person namely Sh. Sanjeev Singh s/o Late Sh. Karan Singh, R/o has surrendered his share of tenancy rights at 3687, Ward No. 11, Phool Mandi, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 with the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB)?
12) That whether Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) has appointed/designated Mr. Syed Shah Badr Hussain Sabri s/o Khurshid as 'Landlord' with regard to 'Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya)' properties ?
13) That whether 'Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya)' properties are registered/enrolled with the 'Waqf Assets Management System of India' (WAMSI) Project?
14) That whether there has been any Unique Identification No. allocated to "Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali (Dargah Sabriya)" properties ?
15) That is there any registered 'Waqf Deed' document with the office of Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) regarding Waqf Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Sabir Ali also known as 'Dargah Sabriya'?
16) If the answer to the abovementioned question No. (14) is 'Yes' then please kindly provide a True copy of the registered 'Waqf Deed'."
The CPIO vide its letter dated 03.05.2023 had given point-wise reply/information to the Appellant. The appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2022. The FAA disposed of the first appeal on 09.03.2023.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Nazia Siddiqui, APIO and Shri Mohit Aggarwal, LDC present in person.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. The Appellant further contented that he has sought specific information in his above- mentioned RTI application but the same was not provided to him by the Respondent.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 03.05.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant.
Upon being queried from the Commission regarding the delay in providing reply, the Respondent submitted that due to administrative disturbances most of their staff went on strike, therefore, the reply was given on 03.05.2023.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information. The Commission observes that the CPIO has given point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per the documents available on record.
It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, she cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
The Commission further observes that queries as sought by the Appellant in his above-mentioned RTI application are more in the nature of seeking 4 explanation, opinion, advice from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the Appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advice can only be provided to the Applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. Despite the fact, the CPIO had furnished point-wise reply in the spirit of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, 5 guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of 6 adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied Nonetheless, the Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
No relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 19-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 7