Central Information Commission
Vikal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DDATY/A/2018/119439-BJ
Mr. Vikal Singh
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Asst. Director (CL), DDA
Commercial Land Branch, Room No. A 116
A - Block, First Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2019
Date of Decision : 18.09.2019
Date of RTI application 30.10.2017
CPIO's response 23.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 22.12.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding whether the NOC dated 11.01.2015 was ever issued by the office of DDA, Commercial Land Branch to Chief Divisional Manager, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, World Trade Center, New Delhi; if yes, the certified copy of the entire file of the aforesaid NOC and other issues related thereto. He further requested for inspection of the aforesaid entire NOC File.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.11.2017, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information. Dissatisfied by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 6
Appellant: Mr. Vikal Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Gupta, PIO/AD/ CL and Mr. V. K. Siddhu, ASO/ CL;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought had been wrongly denied by the Respondent Public Authority under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, being "Third Party" information. The FAA had also not complied with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that other Departments such as Delhi Fire Service and Joint Chief Controller of Explosive (North Circle) had provided similar information i.e. copy of NOC regarding the same petrol pump under the RTI Act and that the copy of the said NOCs were also attached with the First Appeal for the perusal of the Respondent. While narrating the background of the matter, he alleged that the owner of M/s Shraddha Fules namely Shri Harbir Singh had colluded with the officials of IOCL, where Shri Harbir Singh had applied for a petrol pump. Thereafter, the officials of IOCL had referred the said matter for NOC to DCP (Licensing). Subsequently, Shri Harbir Singh in collusion with the officials of DCP (Licensing) and with Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the then Dy. Director (CL), DDA, New Delhi, received NOC for the said Petrol Pump. He further alleged that Mr. Harbir Singh had also not complied with the norms and regulations as specified by the Ministry of Surface Transport and the Indian Road Congress (IRC-12-1983) and that Mr. Pankaj Kumar had also not conducted any inspection of the said land. The Appellant informed that he had written to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi, in this regard. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a suitable reply had already been provided to the Appellant denying information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA had also responded on 27.03.2018. In reference to Appellant's representation/Complaint filed with the LG dated 19.02.2018, a suitable response was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.05.2018 informing that his Complaint was examined in detail and that the matter relates to seeking comment of the Third Party in respect of Petrol Pump on Private Land situated at Village Bhatti, Desil Mehrauli. The Respondent further informed that the desired file was misplaced / missing from the Department and that enquiry against the erring / delinquent officials was underway at this stage. Explaining that very pertinent issues were raised by him in the RTI application, the Appellant submitted that the information sought was very much necessary to be revealed in order to expose the acts of omission committed by the officials of DDA, New Delhi in granting NOC to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, New Delhi.
Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observed that several pertinent issues regarding the record retention and preservation policies adopted by the Respondent Public Authority were raised by the Appellant in the backdrop of alleged issuance of NOC to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, in violation to the extant norms in connivance with the public authority officials. Thus, the Commission felt that the issues required a thorough examination by a competent authority. The Commission noted with concern that in the instant matter, the file is alleged to have disappeared. The Commission, therefore, directs the Pr. Commissioner LD (Coordination), DDA, to get the matter re-examined and search all their records and furnish a factual report to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission regarding the status of the file, the delinquent officer / official responsible for its loss, if not traceable and the action taken thereon.
In this context, the Commission made reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar, W.P.(C) 3660/2012 dated 13.09.2013 wherein the Court had in a matter where inquiry was ordered by the Commission observed as under:
Page 2 of 6"6............It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act."
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the Page 3 of 6 public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."Page 4 of 6
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, as also the serious issues / allegations raised by the Appellant regarding disappearance of a public record, and the contradictory response provided by the CPIO denying information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission instructs the Pr. Commissioner LD (Coordination), DDA, to get the matter re-examined and search all their records and furnish a factual report to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission regarding the status of the file, the delinquent officer / official responsible for its loss, if not traceable and the action taken thereon within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 18.09.2019
Page 5 of 6
Copy to:
1. Mr. Manish Gupta, Pr. Commissioner, LD (Coordination), D - Block, 1st Floor, INA, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Page 6 of 6