Central Information Commission
R C Gupta vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 19 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/110460
F. No.CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/110282
F. No.CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/108481
F. No.CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/100430
Date of Hearing : 12.07.2017
Date of Decision : 12.07.2017
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 19.11.2018
Date of Final Decision : 19.11.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Shri R C Gupta
Respondent : O/o Executive Engineer
(Elect)/South Zone, SDMC
CPIO
O/o the Additional Director,
CGHS
Through: Dr. V N Bhagat, Dr. T N
Singh, Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Ajay Kr.
Agarwal
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. Filed on PIO reply First appeal FAO
110460 28.06.2016 22.08.2016 10.08.2016 26.08.2016
110282 06.04.2015 22.05.2015 25.05.2015 10.06.2015
108481 25.05.2015 03.07.2015 08.07.2015 04.08.2015
100430 07.09.2016 04.10.2016 13.10.2016 19.10.2016
Since the captioned appeals have been filed by the same appellant and
involve similar queries, they are clubbed for the purpose of adjudication
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/110460 Vide RTI application dated 28.06.2016, the appellant sought following information:-
a. Status of application dated 14.06.2016 b. Details of the constitution of the Committee for conversion from Electric CNG based Crematorium, Green Park, New Delhi (Name, Status & Telephone number of each Member of the Committee.). c. Funds released by Health Department or any other agency (Amount, date & name of agency/department) alongwith incidental documents.
The CPIO, EE(E)-IV/SZ, SDMC, informed that the information requested by the appellant was already provided vide letter dated 22.08.2016 and for rest information RTI application transferred to the DHA/South Zone. After received an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the Chief Engineer(E) designated SE(Elect)-II as a Appellate Authority for the said appeal. Further SEE-II/SDMC, Directed the EEE/SZ to provide the information to the appellant within 07 days alongwith incidental documents. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and the appellant states that this is a case of non furnishing of information and of non compliance as well. He seeks the crematorium to be converted into CNG fuelled ones in order to save the environment from polluted by the tradition methods of cremation employed. The Respondent informed that the electric run crematorium has now been decided to be converted into a CNG based one, as per the new policy decision, and sufficient funds have also been allocated for the said purpose. The Respondent states that on the basis of a CNG based model of crematorium run in Pune, the Respondent are trying to rope in the same contractor or someone equally qualified to run this CNG based model of crematorium in Delhi also.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds the submissions of the Respondent a welcome and positive response. It is directed that the Respondent shall furnish Revised Reply to the appellant about the progress made in the direction of conversion of the crematorium into environment friendly CNG model, detailing the exact position and current status with respect to the same, as submitted during the hearing. This Revised Reply should be furnished within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/110282 Vide RTI application dated 06.04.2015, the appellant sought the following information:-
a) Number of employees (Medical Officers) submitted their LTC claims for settlement/reimbursement /payment during the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.01.2015 with complete details.
b) No. of LTC claims settled /reimbursed out of above with complete details.
c) No. of LTC claims remain unsettled/pending with complete details as on date.
d) Status of payment/settlement of LTC claims of CGHS Doctors working in South Zone, CGHS for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.01.2015.
The CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2015 furnished the information as under:-
a. Total number of employees who have submitted their LTC claim for re- imbursement during the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.01.2015 are 60. b. Total number of claims of LTC settled are 60.
c. & d. Number of claims of LTC unsettled /pending is 01. This is regarding Dr. P.K. Nirmall who has taken LTC advance vide bill no. 280 dated 04.04.2014. But he has neither submitted his LTC claim nor deposited the advance amount till date.
d. Settlement claim is long pending by Dr. P.K. Nirmal.
Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA vide letter dated 10.06.2015 disposed of the first appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties have appeared and reiterate their respective contentions. The appellant seeks to know the mode of payment. The queries from the RTI application have been duly answered, but the appellant now seeks the mode of payment vide his First Appeal.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that complete information as sought by the RTI application has already been provided. The mode of payment and date of payment have also been provided during the course of the hearing. No further cause of action remains to be adjudicated.
CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/108481 Vide RTI application dated 25.05.2015, the appellant sought following information:-
a. Number of Medical officers of CGHS South Zone submitted applied for Leave Encashment during the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.03.2015 with complete details.
b. Number of claims of Leave Encashment settled out of above. c. Similarly number of claims of Leave Encashment remain, unsettled /pending with complete details out of above.
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.07.2015 enclosing reply furnished by the Dr. Madhu Vajpayee as under:-
a. 41 Medical officers have applied for leave encashment during the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.03.2015.
b. 40 claims of leave encashment has been settled till date. c. 1 claim of leave encashment is pending till date in R/o Dr. P.K. Nirmal, Ex-Sr. CMO(SAG) because of non submission of his LTC claim till date.
Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA again furnished the information in details to the appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved, appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties have appeared and reiterate their respective contentions. The appellant seeks to know the mode of payment of the LTC. The queries from the RTI application have been duly answered and appellant states he raised the query about mode of payment subsequently in the First Appeal.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that queries from the RTI application have been duly answered. No further action is required in this case.
CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/100430 Vide RTI application dated 07.09.2016, the appellant sought information regarding Men power position of 30/35 (c CGHS Dispensaries of South Zone, Sector 12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.10.2016 as under:-
1. Information pertain to CGHS(HQ).
2. Information at Annexure-I.
3. Information pertain to CGHS(HQ).
Dissatisfied with response received from CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish the information to the appellant.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
Both parties appeared and have reiterated their respective contentions, as made earlier in the submissions.
Decision After hearing the parties and perusal of records, it is evident that information sought by the appellant serves the larger public interest. Hence the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to procure the necessary information about the Sanctioned Strength of allopathic physicians in CGHS Dispensaries of South Zone, Sector 12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022, from the appropriate custodian of information under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, viz. the Headquarter and provide the same within two weeks of receipt of this order. A report of compliance of this order shall be filed before the Commission within two weeks of receipt of the order.
The aforesaid appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Pursuant to the above decision, two communications have been received from the Respondent.
Firstly, a detailed reply dated 16.08.2018 has been received from Sh. Dharmender Sharma- the then Dy. Director/FAA in response to the Notice, which brought forth rather surprising facts, viz.:
i) at the time of hearing of the First Appeal on 24.10.2016, on perusal of documents, appellant was duly informed by the FAA that conversion of his plot from leasehold to freehold was concluded on 16.08.2001;
ii) information about completion of the procedure had also been duly intimated to the appellant and appellant was in possession of Conveyance Deed executed by DDA on 16.08.2001;
iii) the RTI application dated 23.06.2016 enquiring about a procedure of conversion which had attained finality on 16.08.2001, was therefore unnecessary and meaningless.
Secondly, an Enquiry report dated 05.10.2018 has been received from Director, Housing - Sh. B M Thareja which also indicates the same facts i.e. the appellant was very well aware of the successful conversion of his property from leasehold to freehold vide Conveyance deed dated 16.08.2001.
In the light of the unexpected revelation of facts by the above communications of the Respondent, it appears that the case has been inappropriately represented by the appellant without any reasonable cause. A procedure which had concluded approximately sixteen years back, has been unnecessarily been agitated which is totally uncalled for and unwelcome. The Commission finds the submissions of the FAA to be satisfactory and discharges the Notice. However, before with the case at hand, the Commission cannot overlook that the entire proceeding could have been different and the wastage of precious judicial time avoided if only the Respondents had made appropriate submissions at the appropriate time viz. during the hearing held on 14.06.2018. Unfortunately and ironically, the lethargy on the part of the Respondent public officials allow misrepresentations to creep in during proceedings, which result in wastage of time and energy, including that of the same public officials in defending themselves. The Commission hopes that the Respondent would make appropriate submissions before or at the time of hearing reducing this scenario in future.
The Commission treats this appeal as infructuous, considering that it arose out of a procedure which has already attained finality in 2001 and was well within the knowledge of the appellant himself. Commission warns the appellant to refrain from making such misrepresentation of facts in future.
The case is directed to be closed and file be consigned to Record Room.
Show Cause Hearing: 19.11.2018 Pursuant to the above decision, a communication dated 28.08.2017 from the Appellant alleging Non compliance of the Commission's directions. The Commission issued a Notice of Non-Compliance dated 05.10.2018 upon the Respondent.
In response to the same, Respondent - EE(Electrical), South Zone sent a letter dated 15.10.2018 informing that the "The project work of conversion of SDMC's electric crematorium at Green Park to a CNG based crematorium is being dealt by Project Department. This office has already submitted rates of electrical & allied items to project Department for placing the same before Rate Committee. Any further information regarding the conversion may please be sought from office of EE(Project)-I, South Zone, Under Sewa Nagar Flyover, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, New Delhi - 110 003."
The appellant sent yet another submission dated 22.10.2018 about Non- compliance of the Commission's order, which resulted in issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 06.11.2018 by the Commission informing the PIO/EE(E), SDMC -Sh. Pravez Jung to attend hearing scheduled on 19.11.2018.
The Noticee-/EE(E), SDMC -Sh. Pravez Jung neither submitted any reply/explanation to the Show Cause Notice nor did he present himself on 19.11.2018 before the Commission to explain the reason behind such deliberate non adherence of the Commission's directions.
Final Decision: 12.11.2018 Perusal of the order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the Commission in the case number CIC/SDMCE/A/2017/110460 reveals that the directions were specific and directed the Respondent as follows:
"It is directed that the Respondent shall furnish Revised Reply to the appellant about the progress made in the direction of conversion of the crematorium into environment friendly CNG model, detailing the exact position and current status with respect to the same, as submitted during the hearing. This Revised Reply should be furnished within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission."
However, as is evident from the subsequent events as narrated above, even after issuance of a Non-compliance Notice and the Show Cause Notice, the Noticee has failed to take any of the following steps, viz.:
i) furnish the information upon obtaining the same from the relevant custodian of information viz. the EE(Project),or
ii) transfer the RTI Application and Commission's order for compliance to the relevant custodian of information invoking Section 6(3) of the RTI Act;
iii) make any submissions explaining the cause of non-compliance of the Commission's orders;
iv) attend the hearing scheduled for hearing of the Show Cause case to submit his contention.
Thus clearly the Noticee has chosen to wilfully and deliberately defy specific directions issued by the Commission vide order dated 12.07.2017. The response dated 15.10.2018, as sent by the Respondent is demonstrative of an evasive, incomplete and indifferent approach of the Respondent. The Respondent had not informed the Commission during the hearing held on 12.07.2017 or anytime thereafter till 12.10.2018 about involvement of the EE(Project) with the conversion process of the crematorium. Nor has the Noticee made out any case clarifying what prevented transfer of the Commission's orders and RTI application to the actual custodian of information.
The outright defiance and deliberate attempt of the Noticee in causing obstruction in the flow of information has resulted in violation of provisions of the RTI Act has thus attracted the imposition of penalty. Hence, the Commission in exercise of the provisions of the Section 20 of the RTI Act imposes a penalty of Rupees Twenty Thousand on the PIO- Noticee-/EE(E), SDMC -Sh. Pravez Jung for deliberate denial of information, wilfully disobeying directions of the Commission and obstructing the dissemination to the flow of information, without any reasonable cause.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner As per the decision of Commission of even date, in exercise of powers vested under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 penalty/s of Rupees Twenty Thousand is being imposed on the PIO- Noticee-/EE(E), SDMC -Sh. Pravez Jung, payable in four equal instalments of Rupees Five Thousand only.
The first instalment of the aforesaid penalty/s should reach the Commission by 01.12.2018 and the last instalment of penalty/s should reach by 01.03.2019. The penalty/s imposed should be remitted through Demand Draft or a Banker's Cheque drawn in favour of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and the same should be sent to Shri Shanti Priye Beck, Joint Secretary (Admn.), Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, New Delhi - 110 066.
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer