Central Information Commission
Sanjay Narang vs Gnctd on 13 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
Second Appeal No.: CIC/SA/A/2016/000158
CIC/SA/A/2016/000473
Shri Sanjay Narang Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Deputy Commissioner(South) Respondent
Order sheet: (CIC/SA/A/2016/000473)
RTI was filed on 05.09.2013, CPIO replied on: 20.12.2013 First Appellate Order: 30.09.2014, Second
appeal filed on 28.12.2015.
Order sheet: (CIC/SA/A/2016/000158)
RTI was filed on 20.10.2014, CPIO replied on: 20.11.2015 First Appellate Order: NIL, Second appeal
filed on 31.12.2015.
Proceedings on 03.06.2016: Directed the respondent authority to facilitate inspection of the files
and records, posted to 04.07.2016 to be present with relevant papers of compliance.
Proceedings on 04.07.2016: PIO sought 20 days time to collect the documents, penalty
proceedings post-poned to 28.07.2016.
Proceedings on 02.08.2016: Directed the PIO/BDO to facilitate inspection of records on 08.08.2016
along with direction to the PIO-Director (Panchayat) to facilitate inspection of records on 22.08.2016.
Proceedings on 27.09.2017: Appellant is present along with Shri Nilendu Vatsyayan, Advocate and
Public Authority is represented by Shri Anil Misra, OS; Shri Narendra Singh, EAA ; Shri Naresh Pal,
BDO and Shri S. Sharma at CIC. Directions issued and penalty imposed.
Proceedings on 15.10.2018: Appellantalong with Mr. Nilendu Vatsayan, Advocate present at CIC,
Public Authority represented by Mr.Davinder Kumar Sharma, Accounts Officer, former CPIO and Mr.
Somdutt Sharma, former CPIO-BDO(S) at CIC;
Date of Decision - 13.11.2018:
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant in his RTI application dated 05.12.2013 sought the following information:
a. What is the status of land in Khasra No. 310, Pul Pehlad, Lal Kuan, Badarpur, New Delhi?
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 1 b. What is the nature of land usage/land usage type of the abovementioned land in Kh. No. 310 or Kh. No. 310?
c. What is the status of one acre land, situated in East of M/s Amba Stone Crushing Co. and West of M/s Rana Stone Crushing, in Kh. No. 310, leased by the Gaon Sabha in favour of M/s Jagdamba Stone Crushing Co. (Sh Ratan Singh), which was later in the year 1984, purchased by M/s Narang Stone Crushing Co., Prop. Sh Ram Swarup Narang, S/o. Sh Lal Chand Narang?
d. How many such lease were granted by the Gaon Sabha, Pul Pehlad/other land owning authorities to Stone Crushing Co. in the subject area during 1970 onwards?
e. What is the outstanding lease rent, as on date, against the subject land under the possession of M/s Narang Stone Crushing Co, Prop. Sh Ram Swarup Narang?
f. Are any other outstanding lease rent/tax/dues/arrears against the subject land?
g. When last lease rent was paid against the subject land? h. What was the amount of lease rent last paid?
i. Who paid the last lease rent as per the record maintained by your office? j. How many stone crushing companies/units are operating in the subject Kh. No. 310, Pul Pehlad, Lal Kuan, Badarpur, New Delhi and its adjoining/surrounding areas?
k. How many stone crushing companies/units were relocated from the subject area during 1987 to 2005?
l. Please provide list of all such companies units? m. Under what order/scheme/policy/plan/notification/direction such stone crushing companies/units were relocated/allocated alternative land/compensation during the subject period (1987-2005)? Please provide entire certified copy of such relocation scheme/plan.
2. The CPIO on 09.12.2013 by communication dated 20.12.2013 informed that there was no record about Gram Sabha that there was no record about Gram Sabha land in given khasra number, with regard to points 3 to 13, the PIO simply stated that no such records are available in the office. The RTI Application was thus CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 2 transferred to BDO, M. B. Road vide communication dated 31.12.2013 considering that information may be available with the BDO.
3. A communication dated 12.02.2014 from Sh. S.D. Sharma, BDO reveals that out of the total area, khasra no. 310 is (157-07), (69-11) is awarded under control of DDA while remaining (87-16) is notified under Ridge area and no Gram Sabha falls in the said Kh. No.The First Appellate Authority on 17.07.2014 disposed of the appeal after hearing arguments of both parties at length directed that both PIO, BDO(South)/Tehsil(Kalkaji) shall allow inspection of the records within one week of receipt of the order, on a mutually convenient date. Deciding a subsequent first appeal, the ADM(South)/FAA by order dated 30.09.2014 directed the SPIO/BDO (South) to provide up to 15 pages of photocopy of the records free of cost and rest after payment of due fees. The appellant approached the Commission alleging that that despite two first appeals filed before the FAA and several visits the PIO did not give complete set of papers.
I. This Commission by order dated 03.06.2016 directed the respondent authority/director (Panchayat)/ADM (North) to:
Facilitate inspection of all the file sand relevant records, including file notes to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and provide certified copies of the selected documents free of cost.
The Commission directed the PIO as on the date of RTI request, Mr. S. D. Sharma, BDO (South) and the present PIO, and the PIO of Directorate of Panchayat, to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on them for claiming illegally that the records are not available, and for not complying fully with the orders of FAA, and also directed the public authority to explain why compensation should not be directed to be paid by them to the appellant, for causing prolonged harassment, before 30.06.2016.
The Commission directed the past and present PIOs, to be present before the Commission along with relevant papers of compliance of his direction on
04.07.2016 at 2:30 p.m. CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 3 Proceedings on 4.7.2016 II. During the show cause hearing dated 04.07.2016 the PIO agreed that for some records the RTI application should have been transferred to DDA and Forest Department, but it was not done. He requested for 20 days time to collect and provide the same to the appellant. The Commission ordered accordingly and penalty proceedings postponed to 28.07.2016 at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Devender Kumar, PIO did not turn up in spite of receiving the order of CIC dated 03.06.2016 and direction to provide information was not complied with. There was no reply to the Show Cause and Compensation Notice. The Commission gave another chance to Mr. Devender Kumar to provide point wise information to the appellant and submit the explanations called for on 03.06.2016. The case was posted to 28.07.2016.
Proceedings on 2.8.2016 III. In the subsequent Show Cause hearing held on 02.08.2016 the appellant stated that DDA is not concerned with point nos. 4 - 13. The appellant stated that the Director, Panchayat office also maintains records of land approval. The officer of public authority stated that records of land approval are maintained by the BDO Office. The Commission directed the PIO/BDO to facilitate inspection of records to the appellants on 08.08.2016 at 3 pm and to provide certified copies of documents selected. The Commission also directed the PIO- director (Panchayat) to facilitate inspection of records to the appellants on 22.08.2016 at 3 pm and to provide certified copies of documents selected.
Non compliance complaint IV. Appellant filed application complaining of Non compliance on 18.10.2016 on the following lines:
After the directions of Hon'ble Commission appellant visited the office of BDO (South) for inspection of records on the date and time fixed. The officials provided counter foil of L. R. Farm Receipt books immediately prior to the date 16.03.1973 and after this date. But the concerned Book of L. R. Farm receipts having counter foil relating to the appellant were not provided. Appellant alleged that this showed CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 4 the mala fides of the officials. He further complained that on his next visit PIO, BDO (South) failed to provide the desired records, except some counter foil of L.R. Farm 37 receipts pertaining to other Stone Crushing units.
V. Reference has been drawn to a communication dated 25.07.2016 of the PIO, whereby the [PIO/BDO (HQ)/AAO(P)], Sh. Devinder Kumar had stated, inter alia:
"...in accordance to order no. F21(1)/P/82/10120-420 dated 18.08.1982 issued by Addl. District Magistrate (DEV)/Director of Panchayats, the files of allotment should remain in the personal custody of BDO concerned separate from other panchayat files of the blocks..."
VI. In compliance to the order dated 02.08.2016, Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma [PIO/BDO (HQ)/AAO(P)] by a letter dated 14.09.2016 submitted that the Diary & Dispatch register for the period 1984 to 1990 have been traced out from old records and placed before the appellant for inspection on 24.08.2016. The appellant after inspection found records not relevant and hence requested to be provided with Diary & Dispatch register for period between 1973 to 1980, which are now being traced out.
VII. The [PIO/BDO (HQ)], Sh. Devinder Kumar vide subsequent letter dated 01.03.2017 submitted that for the period onward year 1980 to 1990 have been provided to Sh. Sanjay Narang for inspection on 24.08.2016 and observed that no reference is found available on the instant matter.
Also Sh. Sanjay Narang requested to provide the Diary & Dispatch register for the period onward to the year 1973 to 1980, the record is more than 30 years old. The efforts have been made to trace out the said diary & dispatch register from old record available in the office, but due to three four times shifting of the office, only few registers were found available in the record.
Other information asked by the appellant regarding record of Khasra No. 310 of Gaon Sabha Pulpehlad and its surroundings areas in Lal Kuan, Badarpur, New Delhi pertains to the office of BDO (South).
Further, PIO also stated that he was not able to appear in the hearing dated 04.07.2016 because he had been deputed by the Director (P) to the office of Special Vigilance Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi in an urgent manner.
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 5 VIII. Appellant has now filed an application seeking early hearing of this Non compliance application dated 18.10.2016.
4. The Commission vide order dated 08.06.2016 directed as under :-
"5. The Commission directs the respondent authority/ Director(Panchayat)/ ADM(North) to facilitate inspection of all the files and relevant records, including file notes to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and provide certified copies of the selected documents free of cost.
6. The Commission directs the PIO as on the date of RTI request, Mr. S.D.Sharma, BDO(South) and the present PIO, and the PIO of Directorate of Panchayat, to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on them for claiming illegally that the records are not available, for not complying fully with the orders of FAA, directs the public authority to explain why compensation should not be directed to be paid by them to the appellant, for causing prolonged harassment, before 30-6-2016. The Commission takes a very serious view of denial of information to the appellant in this case and directs the past and the present PIOs, to be present before the Commission along with relevant papers of compliance of this direction on 4-7-2016 at 2.30 pm".
5. The Commission vide order dated 08.06.2016 directed as under:-
CIC/SA/A/2016/000473
3. The PIO agreed that for some records the RTI application should have been transferred to DDA and Forest Department, but it was not done. He requested for 20 days time to collect and provide the same to the appellant. The Commission orders accordingly and penalty proceedings postponed to 28.07.2016 at 1200 hours.
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158
4. In the last hearing the Commission had asked PIO to attend the Commission along with relevant documents. Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO did not turn up inspite of receiving the order of CIC dated 03.06.2016, the direction to provide information was also not complied with. There was no reply to the show cause and compensation notice. Mr. Ravinder Singh Extension Assistant, Agriculture also did not bring any papers. He says the PIO is busy and he was asked to attend the hearing. The Commission gives another chance to Mr. Devender to provide point wise information to the appellant and submit the explanations called for on 03.06.2016. The case is posted to 28.07.2016 at 1200 hours. If PIO does not appear or comply with the orders, the Commission will be compelled to proceed in his absence.
6. The Commission's order dated 02.08.2016:
3. The appellant stated that point nos. 4-13, DDA is not concerned. The appellant stated that the Director-Panchayat office also maintains records of land approval. The officer of public authority stated that records of land approval are maintained by the BDO office. The Commission directs the PIO/BDO to facilitate inspection of records to the appellants on 8.8.2016 at 3 pm and provide certified copies of documents selected. The Commission also directs the PIO- Director CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 6 (Panchayat) to facilitate inspection of records to the appellants on 22.8.2016 at 3 pm and provide certified copies of documents selected.
Proceedings on 27.9.2017
7. The appellant and his Counsel represented to the Commission that they have visited the office of BDO, South thrice but the relevant files were not shown by the concerned authorities. Shri Narendra Singh, Extension Assistant submitted that Village Pradhan has handed over some records in 1989 and all those records were given to the appellant at the time of inspection. However, the appellant did not get any information relevant to his request, in spite of several hearings and directions mentioned above. The appellant was compelled to file a non-compliance complaint before this Commission. The Commission issued show-cause notices accordingly and waited for a long time for the responses. As no response was received, the Commission is compelled to issue the following orders:
a. Mr. S.D. Sharma, CPIO (from October 2013 to August 2017) had several chances to provide information sought by the appellant but failed to do so. He was given show cause notice on 04.07.2016 and again on 02.08.2016. There was no response till today. Hence, the Commission has to necessarily draw an inference that Mr. S.D. Sharma has nothing to say in hisdefence, and hence, holds him liable for not furnishing the information, and for non- compliance of the orders of this Commission as mentioned above and holds liable to pay maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.
b. Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO Hqrs. of Panchayat office and also a custodian of all the records concerned of Khasra no. 310 of Gaon Sabha, Phul Pehlatpur Lal Kuan, Badarpur did not respond to show cause notice on 04.07.2016 and again on 02.08.2016. There was no response till today.
Hence, the Commission has to necessarily draw an inference that Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma has nothing to say in hisdefence, and hence, holds him liable for not furnishing the information, and non-compliance of the orders of this Commission as mentioned above and holds him liable to pay maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.
c. From the above chronology of events and several proceedings before the Commission, it is clear that the appellant was harassed and made to run from pillar to post from 05.09.2013 to till date in securing land records and CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 7 could not get relevant information. All his appeals and complaints did not yield any result. The Commission issued notice of compensation on 08.06.2016 to which there was no response till today. Invoking the power under section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act, 2005, the Commission grants a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and directs the respondent authority to pay the amount to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
d. Mr. Naresh Pal, CPIO (from August 2017 to till date) is directed to provide certified copies along with point-wise information, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
8. The Commission's order dated 10.01.2018:
8. The Commission finds each of Shri S.D. Sharma, CPIO and Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO Hqrs. are individually liable under section 20 of RTI Act for not furnishing the information. Hence the Commission imposes maximum penalty on both Shri S.D. Sharma and Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, who are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in 5 equal monthly installments. The Appellate Authority of respondent Public Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the salary payable to Shri S.D. Sharma, CPIO and Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO Hqrs. by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly installments. The first installment should reach the Commission by 09.03.2018 and the last installment should reach by 09.07.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, Central Information Commission, Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
Decision:
9. Mr. Davinder Kumar Sharma, Accounts Officer, Directorate of Civil Defence in his review application dated 25.01.2018, explained as under:
"With reference to order dated 01.01.2018 issued by Sh. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Central Information Commissioner vide which penalty of Rs. 25,000 has been imposed on Davinder Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO (HQ) of Panchayat office for held liable for not furnishing the information under RTI Act to Sh. Sanjay Narang ad non compliance of the show cause notice of CIC dated 4.7.2016 and 2.8.2016 and nothing to say in his defence. I, Davinder Kumar Sharma am drawing your kind attention on the real fact in the matter as follows:-
The RTI application of Sh. Sanjay Narang dated 20.10.2014 received in the office of Director Panchayat and the same was transferred to BDO (South) vide letter dated 05.11.2014 as per the provision under sub Section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005 for supply of the information sought by applicant, as the requisite information is pertains to the office of BDO (South).
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 8 The BDO (South) has replied the RTI application vide letter No. 1381 dated 20.11.2014 to the applicant, but the applicant was not satisfied with the reply.
Hence, the applicant filed an appeal to First Appellate Authority (Jt. Secretary cum Director (Panchayat) on dated 04.12.2014. FAA has directed to dealing staff of Director Panchayat office to provide the record, files and Diary Registers available in the office to the applicant for inspection. The applicant while inspecting the record observed that the particular file/record is not available in this office.
Further, in compliance to CIC order dated 03.06.2016, the FAA has issued direction to BDO (South) vide letter dated 14.06.2016 to give a date to applicant for inspection of record available with them to dispose the reference as per order dated 03.06.2016 of CIC.
As stated in your order dated 10.01.2018-"Mr. Davinder Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO (HQ) of Panchayat Office and also a custodian of all the records concerned of Khasra No. 310 of Gaon Sabha, Pul Pehlatpur Lal Kuan, Badarpur did not respond to show cause notice on 04.7.2016 and again on 02.08.2016. There was no response till today".
In this regard, it is to draw your kind attention that BDO (South) is the custodian of all the record concerned of Khasra no. 310 of Gaon Sabha, Pul Pehlatpur Lal Kuan, Badarpur, as per provision contain in order No F.21(1)/P/82/10120-420 dated 18.08.1982issued by Addl. District Magistrate (Development)/Director of Panchayats which states - "the files of allotment should remain in the personal custody of BDO concerned separate from other panchayat files of the blocks". This was also brought to the notice of CIC vide this office letter No. F.IDNo.21/Dir(p)/RTI- 2014-15/1233 dated 25.07.2016.
Further as stated in order dated 10.01.2018 that "Davinder Kumar Sharma did not respond to show cause notice on 04.07.2016 and again on 02.08.2016".
In this regard, it is submitted to your goodself that in compliance to show cause notice dated 04.07.2016, I personally appeared in your court on 02.08.2016 with written submission vide letter F.ID No.21/Dir(p)/RTI-2014-15/1233 dated 25.07.2016, vide which all the fact and status about the information sought under RTI application and my apology to your goodself for not appearing before your court on 04.07.2016.
In compliance to the show cause notice dated 02.08.2016, the Diary and Dispatch Register for the period 1984 to 1990 have been traced out from old record and the same are placed before Sh. Sanjay Narang for inspection on dated 24.08.2016. Sh. Sanjay Narang has inspected the record and observed that no reference is found available on the instant matter. Further he has requested to provide Diary & Dispatch register for the period onward to the year 1973 to 1990. The compliance was also informed to your goodself vide letter No F ID No.21/Dir(p)/RTI-2014-15/1631 dated 14.09.2016.
Further a letter of even no dated 08.02.2017 was received from Sh. R.P. Grover, Designated Officer, Central Information Commission for Non-compliance of CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 9 CIC order dated 02.08.2016. In compliance of the same a letter was issued vide No. NoF ID No.21/Dir(p)/RTI-2014-15/709-711 dated 01.03.2017 to Sh. R.P. Grover mentioning all the fact and status and copy of this letter was also endorsed to Sh. Sanjay Narang.
It is also pertinent to mentioned that I being an Asstt. Accounts officer posted in the office of Director Panchayat by Finance Department, GNCT of Delhi and dealing with Accounts & Finance work of this office. The work of BDO (HQ) was additionally allotted to me as it was vacant. The officers of DANICS cadre/Grade-1(DASS) are deputed to the post of BDO in every district.
In the month of March-2017, Sh. Kailash Kumar Singh, Supdt./Grade- I(DASS) was posted to the post of BDO(HQ) and subsequently, I have been relieved from Director Panchayat office and joined Directorate of Civil defence, GNCT of Delhi. So, I was not able to defend in the RTI matter further after March-2017.
It is to draw your kind attention that I always give proper attention and priority to the applicant every time when he visited office of Director Panchayat and made efforts to trace out the old records and the same are placed before him for inspection.
Kindly see that the records/information does not pertain to the office of Director Panchayt, and is evident from the letter annexed at A-4. I am being penalized for not providing records but the same was neither in my custody nor in the custody of the office of Director Panchayat. It is not justified and is against the principle of natural justice.
In view of above facts, it is requested to kindly reconsider my case sympathetically and wave off the penalty imposed upon me to the tune of Rs.25,000/-."
10. The appellant Mr. Sanjay Narang in his letter dated 03.05.2018 addressed to Deputy Commissioner (South), South (Distt.), M.B. Road, Saket and Joint Secretary- cum Director (Panchayat) along with a copy to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Central Information Commission, wrote and explained as under:
"The applicant had filed RTI application before the concerned PIO in September 2013, filed First Appeal and Second Appeal before Hon'ble CIC to get information. The Order dt. 01.01.2018 has not been complied by the concerned officials till date.
The Hon'ble Commission after several hearing has passed detailed order & direction dt. 01.01.2018, operative part of the directions is reproduced below:
"a. Mr. S.D. Sharma, CPIO (from October 2013 to August 2017) had several chances to provide information sought by the appellant but failed to do so. He was given show cause notice on 04.07.2016 and again on 02.08.2016. There was no response till today. Hence, the Commission has to necessarily CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 10 draw an inference that Mr. S.D. Sharma has nothing to say in his defence, and hence, holds him liable for not furnishing the information, and for non- compliance of the orders of this Commission as mentioned above and holds liable to pay maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.
b. Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO Hqrs. of Panchayat office and also a custodian of all the records concerned of Khasra no. 310 of Gaon Sabha, Phul Pehlatpur Lal Kuan, Badarpur did not respond to show cause notice on 04.07.2016 and again on 02.08.2016. There was no response till today. Hence, the Commission has to necessarily draw an inference that Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma has nothing to say in his defence, and hence, holds him liable for not furnishing the information, and non-compliance of the orders of this Commission as mentioned above and holds him liable to pay maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.
c. From the above chronology of events and several proceedings before the Commission, it is clear that the appellant was harassed and made to run from pillar to post from 05.09.2013 to till date in securing land records and could not get relevant information. All his appeals and complaints did not yield any result. The Commission issued notice of compensation on 08.06.2016 to which there was no response till today. Invoking the power under section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act, 2005, the Commission grants a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and directs the respondent authority to pay the amount to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
d. Mr. Naresh Pal, CPIO (from August 2017 to till date) is directed to provide certified copies along with point-wise information, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
8. The Commission finds each of Shri S.D. Sharma, CPIO and Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO Hqrs. are individually liable under section 20 of RTI Act for not furnishing the information. Hence the Commission imposes maximum penalty on both Shri S.D. Sharma and Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, who are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in 5 equal monthly installments. The Appellate Authority of respondent Public Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the salary payable to Shri S.D. Sharma, CPIO and Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, PIO, BDO Hqrs. by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly installments. The first installment should reach the Commission by 09.03.2018 and the last installment should reach by 09.07.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, Central Information Commission, Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
The Appellant received a letter no. 429, dt. 05/02/2018 from the Office of BDO (S), M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi. The content of letter contains the same information which was provided to the appellant earlier. No fresh information was provided.
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 11 It is respectfully submitted that directions be issued to the concerned officials to ensure strict compliance of the above-mentioned directions dt. 01.01.2018 of the Hon'ble CIC."
11. The officers during the hearing submitted that the appellant was apprised with the information that the records in question are not available. They further submitted that a writ petition concerning to this instant case is pending adjudication before the High Court.
12. The counsel for appellant upon hearing the submissions of the respondent authority pleaded two days' time to expound meticulous suggestions regarding how records are to be maintained in a public authority office. Accordingly, the counsel for appellant on 22.10.2018 in his email explained as under:
"Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That during hearing on 15.10.2018 before the Hon'ble Commission, the appellant had been granted liberty to file suggestions for issuance of appropriate directions to all such public authorities for proper compliance of the provisions of RTI Act in letter and spirit.
2. That the applicant had filed RTI application before the concerned PIO in September 2013, filed First Appeal before the concerned FAAs and Second Appeal before Hon'ble CIC to get requisite information.
3. That the concerned Public Authorities have failed to comply the Order and direction of this Hon'ble Commission dt. 01.01.2018.
4. That in extensive study done by Right to Information Assessment and Analysis Group [RAAG] led by the scholar and respected Shekhar Singh, shows that:
"Around 54% of the RTI applications sought information which should have been displayed suo moto by the public authorities under their obligations under Section 4; and About 20% of the RTI applicants were asking for information which should have been provided to them without their ever having to file an application or even without using the RTI Act...".
5. That on careful perusal of the averments in the Appeal of the Appellant before this Hon'ble Commission, it is clear that the concerned Public Authorities of Govt. of NCT of Delhi has measurably failed to comply the provisions of Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005.
6. That in response to the very first RTI Application the appellant had enclosed all the records available with him for reference of the PIO of the concerned public authorities. Despite that in their first reply the PIO said that there is no such information available.
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 12
7. That when the appellant approached the FAAs the concerned PIOs came forward and provided some information and records. When the appellant filed appeal before this Hon'ble Commission, the public authorities provided some more records and information which was on the first occasion deliberately not provided to the appellant.
8. That but the complete information and record as desired by the appellant have not been provided by the PIOs of the Public Authorities till now.
9. That in view of the above submissions, pleadings and records placed by the appellant before this Hon'ble Commission it is evident that the Appellant had been denied the rights guaranteed under R.T.I. Act, 2005.
10. Therefore, the appellant humbly seeks following directions:
(i) All public authorities/ Govt. Authorities be directed to strictly comply the provision of Section 4 of R. T. I. Act, 2005.
(ii) The PIOs of the public authorities should be directed to file undertaking for strict compliance of Section 4 (1) (a) and Section 4 (1) (b) (xvii).
(iii) With each reply, in response to RTI Application under the RTI Act, the PIO concerned should give an undertaking that the information furnished by the PIO is updated in terms of provisions of Section 4 of RTI Act,
(iv) If the entire information or part of the information furnished by the PIO is uploaded/available on the website of the concerned public authority/entity, reference (web-link of the same) should also be mentioned in the reply to the RTI Application.
(v) If the entire information or part of the information furnished by the PIO is based on any catalogue/index/file/folder etc or electronic record or any other form of record, reference of the same be also given in reply to the RTI application.
(vi) In the present case, one of the PIO has partly complied the directions regarding payment of fine of Rs 25000/-. The other PIO has filed Writ petition before High Court of Delhi. In these circumstances, a general direction be passed that in such situation, the appellant must be informed by the concerned authorities regarding part compliance/entire compliance of such directions and regarding filing of the petition against the impugned order/direction in advance along with paper book.
(vii) That during hearing before the FAA of PIO, BDO (South) Govt. of NCT Delhi, the PIO had raised objection in providing the information.
The Counsel (Advocate) of the present Appellant submitted that the all the record maintained by the public authorities, being custodian of CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 13 the public record/information, they cannot deny the same to be provided to the appellant.
Therefore, it is imperative to declare that the PIOs are merely custodian of the public records/information. The appellant seeks direction of the Hon'ble to declare the PIOs merely 'custodian' of public record/information.
13. The Commission has finalized the penalty proceedings after giving sufficient opportunity to the officers, extending time to accommodate their presence and submissions etc. The CPIO generally represents the entire public authority and the information held by public authority has to be shared under RTI unless exempted. The CPIO also holds responsibility of mandatory disclosures in general, and if such information was sought that was supposed to be disclosed under Section 4(1)(b) is not disclosed, the CPIO will be liable under Section 20. For the above referred reasons the Commission finds no error or defect on the face of the record in its earlier decision and no reason to alter such order. The Commission considers the submissions of the appellant and recommends the public authority:
(i) to strictly comply with the provision of Section 4 of R. T. I. Act, 2005,
(ii) to ensure that the information furnished by the PIO is updated in terms of provisions of Section 4 of RTI Act,
(iii) to providereference or weblink with each reply, in response to RTI Application under the RTI Act, if entire information is already furnished on website.
(iv) to provide reference or weblink even if partial information was given in their reply to the RTI Application.
14. In view of the above, the Commission rejects the application for review of the Commission's Order. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2016/000158 & 473 Page 14