Central Information Commission
Dal Chand Yadav vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 November, 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/2018/124823-BJ
Mr. Dal Chand Yadav
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Dy. Director (LM), WZ/PIO
Subhash Nagar Crossing, New Delhi - 110027
2. CPIO
Executive Engineer, WD - 7
Office of the Executive Engineer
Western Division -7, Delhi Development Authority
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.11.2019
Date of Decision : 04.11.2019
Date of RTI application 02.11.2017
24.01CPIO's response 14.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 21.12.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.04.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the copy of the entire file no. F7 (6) 2017/LM (WZ)/DDA with regard to demolition programme fixed for Khasra No. 695, 696 and 607 min of Village Madipur, Delhi, including office file notings maintained at the office of Dy. Director (LM) WZ, DDA, Subhash Nagar Mor, New Delhi and other issues related thereto.
The Dy. Director (LM) WZ/PIO, vide its letter dated 14.11.2017, transferred the RTI application to the Executive Engineer, WD-7, DDA Office, New Delhi, under Section 6(3) of the RTI application, for necessary action at their end. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response Page 1 of 4 from the concerned CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dal Chand Yadav along with Mr. Siddhartha Yadav (Adv.); Respondent: Mr. C. B. Singla, AE/WD-7, Mr. Siddhant Kashyap, EE, WD - 7/DDA, Mr. Sanjay Tanwar, AD/LM/WZ and Ms. Shashi, ASO/ LM/WZ ;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information on points 01 and 02 pertaining to LM Division had not been received by him. However, he had received a reply from WD-7 Division. Primarily, he sought the details of the entire file with regard to demolition programme fixed for Khasra No. 695, 696 and 607 min of Village Madipur, Delhi. The representative of the LM Division present at the hearing informed the Commission that the said record had been destroyed as per extant guidelines. On being queried by the Commission, if an affidavit could be issued in this respect, he stated that the Dy. Director concerned could issue the affidavit. In addition, the written reply dated 29.10.2019 was submitted that contained the correspondence with various authorities within the DDA in respect of the said property numbers, a copy of which was endorsed to the Appellant also. Appalled at the reply of the LM Division about destruction of records, the Appellant raised serious doubts about the intent of the DDA to destroy such records wherein the information was sought within
02 years and questioned the policy of the Public Authority in respect of destruction of records. A reference was also made to page 29 of the submissions on file wherein vide letter dated 27.11.2017, it was informed to EE WD-7 that there was no stay and the demolition action had to be taken on the said property.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 29.10.2019 wherein while reiterating the chronological sequence of the events, it was submitted that a Para-wise reply had already been provided to the Appellant and that the RTI application was disposed off accordingly.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 435..... "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, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
In the context of directing the Respondent to issue an affidavit to the information seeker regarding the factual position in the matter, the Commission referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 30/10/2013 [W.P.(C)3381/2011- Ajay Kumar Gulati v/s Pushpender Nath Pandey and anr.] wherein it was inter-alia observed as under: -
"9. When the writ petition came for hearing on 28.01.2013, the following direction was issued to respondent No. 2:
"In view of the above, respondent no. 2 shall file an affidavit stating therein clearly as to whether relevant record has been destroyed and if that is so, whether information with regard to the same has been entered in the Records Destroyed Register. If such a register is maintained, the relevant extract from the said Registrar will accompany the affidavit."
10. In order to bring the whole controversy to an end, the respondent, vide order dated 01.07.2013 was directed to file affidavit of the concerned General Manager responding to the information sought by the petitioner vide application dated 30.10.2008 Page 3 of 4 in respect of items No.2 to 16. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent bank has filed an affidavit of its General Manager stating therein that the information sought by the petitioner filed vide application dated 30.10.2008 could not be provided to him as the same was not traceable and is still not traceable in the bank, despite best efforts to trace the said information. In view of the categorical affidavit filed by none other than the General Manager of the Bank, it is quite clear that the information to the extent it is not supplied to the petitioner is not available with the bank in any form. Since the information is not available with the bank, there can be no question of granting any direction to the bank to provide the same to the petitioner.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Pr. Commissioner (LM), DDA to enquire into the matter through an officer of an appropriate seniority and re-examine the RTI application and furnish a clear, cogent and precise response as also an affidavit about destruction of records in the said matter as claimed by the Respondent (LM) present at the hearing, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the enquiry report should be sent to the Appellant with an endorsement to the Commission for its information.
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 accordingly.
(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: 04.11.2019
Copy to:
1. Mr. Shripal, Pr. Commissioner (Personnel, Horticulture and Landscape), Block 'B', Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi 110023 Page 4 of 4