Central Information Commission
Rahul Sharma vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 7 July, 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/DSIDC/A/2021/108481-UM
CIC/DSIDC/A/2021/108886-UM
Mr. Rahul Sharma
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Coporation Limited
Plot No 74-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar - III,
New Delhi- 110024
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.06.2022
Date of Decision : 07.07.2022
Date of RTI application 10.11.2020
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 26.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.02.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points, as under:-
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSIDC/A/2021/108886 The CPIO, Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, vide letter dated 24.04.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2019 directed the CPIO to send the information to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of issue of the order of FAA.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant:Present through AC Respondent: Mr. SN Saran superintending Engineer, Mr. Amit Kumar Executive engineer Present in Person The Appellant, while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application, submitted that he was not furnished a proper reply by the Respondent despite the fact that the matter was in relation to an alleged racket that has been in existence for years. When queried he said he had filed the application in public interest as a founding member of RACO, a registered organization, whose objective is to monitor quality and transparency in civil works and on whose intervention even the courts have passed orders in favour of transparency in Government works . He said the present application was filed by him to bring to light matters of alleged corruption by officials of the Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Department in the execution of civil works in illegal colonies regularized by the Government. The appellant alleged that there were 31 civil work tenders in connection with the civil work in these colonies which had been given to contractors at rates which were 50 % less than the minimum official prescribed price of the tender. He said how was execution with the approved quality possible when the rates at which the contractors discharged the works were less than even the procurement price of the construction material. He said this was the reason why reckless replies were being given to him and documents exposing this scam were being denied by the Respondent. The intention behind this, he alleged , was to hide the truth. He said even inspection was not being offered to him for this very reason. He alleged that the combined minimum tender price of these 31 works was around Rs 100 Crores in amount but these were given at a combined rate of less than Rs 50 crores. He claimed that this was done to delete competition and this clearly established a nexus between corrupt officials and selected contractors.
The Respondent vehemently denied the charges and instead alleged that the Appellant was a habitual offender who has often tried to pressurise officials of the Respondent Authority by filing false RTIs and had also tried to misbehave with a senior official and pressurise him on one occasion by gheraoing him with a large group of his followers on the pretext of not getting a proper reply to his RTI application. He further said that in spite of having been requested to come at given date and time to collect the information in regard to his RTI application , the Appellant had deliberately avoided appearing for the said inspection and instead resorted to pressure tactics.
The Appellant alleged that the officials of the DSIIDC were not giving him crucial documents in the case as they had destroyed those documents in order to hide their acts of omission and commission. Explaining further he said he had sought point wise information on the schedule of quantity, invoices of material procured, extract of cost payment made to the contractor, list of vendors, test check reports etc. but DSIIDC had miserably failed to provide the documents to him as they had allegedly destroyed the documents.
The respondent vehemently denied all the charges levelled by the Appellant and said these are proved false by the fact that the DSIIDC had hired 3 TPQA Third party quality assurance agencies to ensure quality check, measurement and inspection of their works and all these TPQAs were reputed ones associated with the reputed Government entities. He said in addition to this they have also empanelled the government lab to check these items and that even the procurement part was being monitored. However, the Respondent didn't not agree on the two main demands of the Appellant - allowing him an inspection of the civil works executed in the case of 31 tenders in question and sharing copies of the actual procurement bills. Instead, the Respondent said if the Appellant wants he can go and inspect the works on his own.
Contradicting the allegations made by the Respondent that he had been filing false and multiple RTI applications in order to pressure the Respondent Authority the Appellant said that these charges were false which is proved in the way the Respondent Authority had conducted itself while dealing with the Application, particularly on the direction of the FAAto share the information which the Respondent had not implemented. He alleged that the Respondent's submission that he was an habitual offender and was misusing the RTI platform was an after thought raised only after the FAA order which proved that the Respondent was making the allegation only as part of his defense and that it had no substance. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that despite his strong defence against the allegations levelled by Appellant, the Respondent could not justify as to how and why tenders have been awarded at rates almost 50 % less than the minimum tender price in this case. Further the Commission observes that the said information pertains to people belonging to the lower strata of society once living in illegal colonies which were regularised and hence the matter was directly concerned with the improvement in the living standards of the poor people. Therefore, transparency is of utmost importance in the execution of Government work in such cases. The Commission further observes that there is substance in the charges of corruption leveled by the appellant in the 31 civil works of the DSIIDC carried out in the regularisation of unauthorized colonies as evident from the fact that tenders worth Rs 100 crores at minimum Government price in 31 Civil works were allegedly awarded at a combined rate of less than Rs 50 crores. It therefore indicates a nexus between the contractors and the officials. The Respondent defended by saying that awarding tenders at rates lower than the minimum price was a common practice and that going by the law they are bound to award the tender to L1. However he couldn't justify as to how the tenders could be awarded at a rates which were as low as 50 per cent of the minimum Government price. Therefore, the Commission deems this application in larger public interest and directs the Respondent Authority to share all the information sought by the Appellant in a span of 25 days from the date of receipt of this order, strictly in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI law.
Further the Commission advises Managing Director, DSIIDC , Delhi Government, to investigate the matter in larger interest of transparency and accountability in Government system and take corrective action against the officials if they are found to be involved in manipulation and dishonest practices in awarding the 31 tenders in question in a span of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeals stand 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 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 07.07.2022