Central Information Commission
S. D. Wadhwa vs Registrar Cooperative Society on 30 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/AT/A/2008/00805/SA
S D Wadhwa v. PIO, Registrar Cooperative Societies
Order sheet: RTI application was filed on 25.02.2008, CPIO replied on 10.03.2008: First
Appellate Order: 02.05.2008, Second appeal filed on 23.06.2008.
Proceedings on 01.12.2008 before IC(SG): Directions issued to provide list of members who
attended the promoter's meeting along with audit reports.
Proceedings on 30.03.2015: Show-cause notice issued to all officers holding charge as PIO on
01.12.2008 and all officers who became PIO subsequently till and including Shri A.K. Verma along
with compensation notice
Proceedings on 18.06.2015: Commission was satisfied with the response received from officers
of the Respondent Authority, dropped penalty charges. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed to
examine the question of penalty proceedings. Accordingly hearing was scheduled.
Proceedings on 09.10.2017: Appellant is present and Public Authority is represented by Mr.M.L.
Gupta (retired on 28.02.2014); Mr. B.K. Puri, Dy. Secy (M/o. Home Affairs); Mr. S.S. Bajwan, (AC-
Sales Tax); Mr. L.R. Meena, Dy. Secy (PWD) at CIC.
Date of Decision 25.01.2018: Disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding the total membership as also copy of the report of duly audited accounts of 'Sarai Sidhu Ilaqa Coop. Gr.H.B.S Ltd. Regn No. NW-851, as per the order passed by the RCS dated 29.01.2003.
The CPIO on 10.03.2008 stated that the information sought is not clear and he requested the appellant to inspect the files available in that zone as well as with PA to RCS on 17.03.2008 and obtain the desired information. FAA on 02.05.2008 disposed off the appeal citing that the SPIO produced an old folder having list of promoters and other document. The audit branch has informed that no audit report is available, also the letter which was sent to DDA along with list of members for allotment of land which according to him belonging to year 1992 is not available on record.
2. Shri Babu Lal, Former Deputy Registrar on 27.05.2015 explained in his noting, that:
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 1 "The second appeal filed by Shri S.D. Wadhwa against the Registrar, Cooperative Society, GNCTD, Delhi was heard by the then Information Commissioner (SG) on 1.12.2008. After hearing, following decisions were conveyed on 1.12.2008:-
(i) Directed the Respondent Authority/PIO to provide a list of the members who attended the promoters meeting on 8th October 1983 and a written statement that they have no other list of members of the said society as claimed before the Commission.
(ii) The PIO was also directed to provide an answer recording the reasons for their inability to give the audit reports as mentioned before the Commission.
(iii) The requisite answer was required to be furnished before 10.12.2008.
2. On receipt of a representation dated 9.12.2014 from Shri S.D. Wadhwa, the said case was further heard on 25.3.2015. The Hon'ble Commissioner directed the officer holding charge as PIO on 1.12.2008 and all officers who became PIO subsequently till Shri A.K. Verma (including Shri Verma) to explain as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon them individually for not complying with the orders dated 1.12.2008 of the Commission by 2.5.2015 with relevant documents/papers based on which they made their explanations. The Commission further directed the PIO of the Public Authority to explain as to why Rs. 10,000/- as compensation should not be paid to the Appellant for the harassment suffered at the hands of the authorities. The Commission also directed the PIO to explain as to why prosecution of the PIO should not be initiated or any other officer obstructing the supply of requisite information.
3. In response, Assistant Registrar (Sec-VII) has intimated that the issue regarding refund of money to Shri Sanjiv Wadhwa, Shri Pankaj Wadhwa, Rajiv Wadhwa and Shri Harish Wadhwa was considered by the then Registrar (vide his order dated 29.1.2013) and it was observed that the receipts of payment furnished by them were alleged to be forged. The PIO has further stated the Shri S.D. Wadhwa had not challenged the aforesaid order of the then Registrar before any Higher Competent Authority. He has also mentioned that an inquiry u/s/ 55 in respect of complaint made by Shri S.D. Wadhwa was held by the Inquiry Officer (Shri T.S Joseph) then Dy. Registrar) and a report dated 29.7.1997 was furnished by him. It was reported that in order to sort out the issue of payment to Shri Sanjiv Wadhwa, Shri Pankaj Wadhwa, Shri Rajiv Wadhwa, Shri Harish Wadhwa and Shri S.D. Wadhwa were issued notices on 30.6.1997 to appear on 7.7.1997 to verify the facts as alleged in the complaint. But Shri S.D. Wadhwa neither appeared nor submitted any documents to substantiate his allegations. It was also been clarified that the complainant (Shri S.D. Wadhwa) was not a member of the Society (Sarai Sidhu Illaqa). In the Inquiry report, it was further pointed out that the said four members of the Society (Shri Sanjiv Wadhwa, Shri Pankaj Wadhwa, Shri Rajiv Wadhwa, and Shri Harish Wadhwa) had deposited the amount directly in the bank but no documentary evidence was produced to the society and as such the refund of the amount could not be made to them. It has been mentioned that the photocopies of the receipts which were produced were not authenticated and all were stated to be forged ones. The Assistant Registrar has also mentioned that Shri S.D. Wadhwa can not represent other 3 members (Shri Sanjiv Wadhwa, Shri Rajiv Wadhwa and Shri Harish Wadhwa) without getting any proper authority from them. The Assistant Registrar has further informed that a list of 266 members (which was sent to DDA on 18.4.1984) has CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 2 since been supplied to the appellant. An audit report pertaining to the year 1989- 90 alongwith balance sheet for the 1990-91 were also made available to the appellant.
5. The CPIO has further mentioned that the appellant has misled the Hon'ble Commission by not disclosing all the relevant facts about the forged receipts produced by the applicants which were not found genuine. It has also been pointed out that the society has not been functioning for the last 30 years and all the relevant records are not readily traceable.
6. The Appellant has (vide his letter dated 6.5.2015) intimated that the explanation given by the Asstt. Registrar (Shri A.K.Verma) is irrelevant, illogical and irrational and his explanation is not acceptable to him.
7. As the issue regarding refund of the amount as deposited directly in the Bank by the applicants is not free from doubt and in order to get authenticated facts, we may, if approved, fix another hearing of the case on 17.6.2015 at 2.30 PM.
8. We may also direct the concerned PIO to bring the original records and receipts for perusal of the Hon'ble Commissioner. He may also be directed to send requisite explanation of the earlier PIOs subsequent to 1.12.2008 in RCS office. The appellant may also be directed to bring all the original papers and receipts issued by the Bank to justify the correctness of the requisite payment deposited in the Bank and relevant intimation/papers given to the Society about the payment made to the bank.
3. On 30.04.2015, Shri A.K. Verma, Asst. Registrar (Sec-VII) explained some more facts, which are as under:
"As the department undergone the tremendous exercise when all the zones of the department were reorganized into sections by re-allocation of work alphabetically in July/August 2014 to tone up the overall functioning of the department.
On receiving the aforesaid order of CIC dated 30/03/2015 an all out efforts were made by the undersigned by deputing extra staff to trace out the old records pertaining to the year 1983 in r/o Sarai Sidhu Illaqua CGHS Ltd.
The record transpired that one point of time the society was allotted land by DDA which was subsequently cancelled on account of society's failure to make full payment of the cost of land to the DDA within given time. Out of payment of Rs.63,95,280/- an amount of Rs.31,76,414/- was forfeited to the DDA and the balance amount of Rs.31,76,414/- was refunded by DDA to the society vide cheque dated 21.10.1994.
There have been allegations that the amount refunded by DDA was utilized for refunding of 121 members only and leaving out 31 members, who failed to produced the documentary evidence regarding deposit of amount.
Out of these 31 members 04 members namely Sh. Sanjeev Wadhwa (MS.No.77), Sh. Pankaj Wadhwa (MS.No.78), Sh. Rajiv Dhang (MS.No.305) and Sh. Harish CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 3 Wadhwa (MS.No.311) were represented by Sh. S.D.Wadhwa (the RTI applicant in the court of RCS). RCS passed the order on 19.01.2003 during the proceedings in the court of RCS, the society informed that the aforesaid 04 members were not refunded as they had not deposited the amount directly in the bank account of the society and not with the society. The photocopies of the receipts which were produced were also not authenticated. They all were forged.
Further, Sh. S.D. Wadhwa advocate said to have represented by above 04 members had filed only one Vakalatnama and also the other documents/application were signed by only Sh. Pankaj Wadhwa (who is the son of Sh. S.D. Wadhwa). None of the other 03 members had ever appeared personally or had filed any documents/application/Vakalatnama signed by them. Hence, it was held that Sh. S.D. Wadhwa can't represent the 03 members without getting any authority from them. No personal ever appeared being represented by Sh. S.D. Wadhwa.
In view of the above the undersigned request the Hon'ble Commission to record the fact that the applicant has not approached the commission with clean hands and has mislead the commission by not disclosing the facts to the commission the receipt produced by the applicant and available of records does not seem to be genuine further the applicant not representing the members with proper authority.
The information pertaining to the year 1983 and society has not functioning for the last 30 years therefore, the record was not readily traceable, however, somehow the information i.e., (1) list of 266 members which was sent to the DDA out of a list of 300 (68 promoters & 232 others) members submitted by the society on 18.04.1984 (ii) Audit report pertaining to the year 1989-90 and alongwith balance sheet for the 1990-91 is made available to the applicant."
4. In response to the aforesaid letter, the appellant explained further and making some comments on 06.05.2015:
"1. That in the above matter of non-compliance of the Hon'ble CIC's Order dated 01.12.2008, a show-cause notice to Respondent (as to why Rs. 10,000/- should not be paid to the applicant-appellant who suffered harassment at the hands of authorities for over 6 years to the deemed PIO/Respondent no. 1 on 30- 03-15 inter-alia his prosecution U/ss 166, 187 & 188 IPC etc.
2. That the respondent was further directed to submit his explanation by 2nd May, 2015 at 2.30 PM which of course he has tendered vide his application running into 2 pages along-with 55 enclosures under the above reference dated 30-04-15.
3. That it is most respectfully submitted by the applicant in brief, that the explanation of the respondent is just a sham & farce and the same is therefore, is liable to be dismissed 'in-limine' with exemplary costs and punitive damages in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 4
4. That it is further considered imperative to state here that whatever has been stated in the 2 sheets reply by the respondent, to say the least, is an absolute muck and doesn't at all make/convey any sense to meet the 2 requirements (of updated membership list as on the above date i.e. 01-12-2008 & another one of that of Society's duly Audited Accounts Report) to be complied by him. In short, the explanation is a rigmarole besides being totally irrelevant, illogical & irrational thereto, hence it deserves to be rejected out-rightly summarily without any second thought. Furthermore, the so-called compliance is wholly burlesque, a caricature and makes out a clear case of burking by the PIO for 20 long years at the instance of the corrupt RCS who is regulator of the Cooperative Societies.
5. That the respondent had earlier i.e. over 6 years before supplied the applicant the list of 68 members as against that of 266 members given now, which for all intents and purposes is self-contradictory on the face of it as per the attached report dated 31-03-91 revealed to the counsel of the 4 members represented by him for the first time in the 32 years history of the existence of the society till date wherein the 'phantom' Secretary of the Society has shown the deposits at S.No. 71 of the list attached therewith of Sh. Sanjeev Wadhwa, Membership No.77 of Rs. 10,100/-: at S.No. 264 of Sh. Rajiv Kumar Dang, Membership No.78 of Rs. 10,100/-: S.No. 270 of Sh. Harish Kumar Wadhwa, Membership No. 311 of Rs.10,100/- but has deliberately failed to account for Rs. 32,500/- deposited by each of the said 4 members in the year 92 as per the demand made on them.
6. That no updated audit report of the accounts of the Society has so far been supplied to the applicant as directed by the Hon'ble Commission vide its order dated 01-12-2008 as aforesaid. The defalcation in accounts of the Society alone has caused a loss of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the members apart from physical harassment and prolonged mental agony for 20 long years, hence the reason for its rejection.
7. That in brief the entire instant explanation is not at all acceptable to the applicant who prays for its summary dismissal with exemplary costs and punitive damages against the respondent and in favour of the applicant.
5. On 20.05.2015, Shri A.K. Verma(Sec-VII) submitted an explanation, which states:
"...In addition to above an enquiry U/s 55 in r/o complaint made by Sh. S.D.Wadhwa was also made submitted by the enquiry officer Sh. T.S. Joseph (The then Dy. Registrar) dated 29-07-1997, where in it is reported that "As regards payments to S/Sh. Sanjiv Wadhwa, Pankaj Wadhwa, Rajiv Wadhwa and Harish Wadhwa, Sh. S.D. Wadhwa the complainant was issued notice No. 619- 621 on 30-06-1997 to appear on 07-07-1997 to verify the facts as alleged in the complaint. But Sh. S.D. Wadhwa the complainant neither appeared nor submitted any document to substantiate his allegations."
Even then in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble CIC the information (i) a list of 266 members which was sent to the DDA out of a list of 300 (68 promoters and 232 others) members submitted by the society on 18-04-1984, (ii) Audit CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 5 report pertaining to the year 1989-90 and alongwith balance sheet for the 1990- 91 has already provided to the applicant vide letter dated 30-04-2015. The applicant if not satisfied with the provided information, he may visit the RCS office on any working day to see the records/documents as available in this office, pertaining to the society."
6. The appellant on 18.06.2015 submitted response to the explanation of officers with defects of the issues raised by the appellant, which is as under:
"...2. That it is also a matter of record that the Hon'ble Commissioner directed the Officers holding charge as PIO on 01-12-2008 and all officers who became PIOs subsequently till Sh. A.K. Verma, Asstt. Registrar (SEC. 7) including him to explain as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them individually for not complying with the Order dated 01-12-2008 of the Commission. The Commission also directed the PIO to explain as to why the Commission should not initiate prosecution of the PIO or any other Officer obstructing the information.
3. The averments made and the issues raised in the un-numbered para 3 by A.R. of Sec. VII of the office of the RCS are highly misconceived, unfortunate, illusory and do not have any/even remotest connection/nexus whatsoever with the non-compliance of the two essential points(a) supplying the appellant the updated list of members of the Society and (b) the other one being the categorical answer recording the reasons of the RCS office inability to give the duly audited and updated yearly accounts report by it to which there is no satisfactory answer even till today what to talk of the compliance thereto to be accorded by 10th Dec. 2008.
This assertion of the AR is virtually a clumsy and totally irrelevant approach amounting to deliberately/wilfully and intentionally misleading, misguiding by misrepresenting the real points at issue to the Hon'ble CIC. In short, it is nothing but a clever attempt on the part of the tactful and tricky AR to find an escape route by evading and avoiding the real problem of this obedience and contumacious non-compliance of the orders of Ld. Predecessor CIC upto 10th Dec. 2008. This is a short reply to the first 4½ lines written by the clever AR with the consultation and the guidance of his Sr. Officer/s in the RCS Office.
Adverting to the subsequent part of his submission that the appellant S.D. Wadhwa, Advocate has not challenged the aforesaid order of the Registrar before any higher competent authority which is not only wrong and incorrect but also untrue and totally false. It is a matter of record that the impugned Order dtd. 29.01.2003 passed by the then RCS had been duly challenged before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal by filing a formal appeal soon thereafter. But the same was dismissed on the sole ground of the RCS having ordered the Society in the impugned Order to make refund of the deposits made by the 4 members. This is and continues to be a matter of record.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 6 Another un-called for attempt has been made by the Ld. AR to rake-up the issue of inquiry U/s 55 by the then Inquiry Officer (Sh. T.S. Joseph) the then D.R. dated 29.07.1997 before whom the complainant Sh. S.D. Wadhwa could not appear due to certain unavoidable reasons and circumstances but he has intentionally failed to bring to the notice of Hon'ble Commission the ruthless and hard-hitting report conducted by another D.R (one Mr. P. D. Sharma) U/s 59 Act against the Fake Secretary and Fantum Treasurer of the Society. It definitely amounts to burking on the part of the Ld. A.R. By way of passing reference the Ld. A.R has also talked about the allegedly forged receipts of payment submitted by the counsel for the 4 members which is a point orally/verbally raised by the Fake Secretary and never given or challenged in writing during the proceedings before the then RCS otherwise the then RCS was fully competent to refer the receipts to the Forensic Science Laboratory/Experts or Handwriting Experts for giving the report thereon i.e. about the genuineness or otherwise thereof. If the RCS has not considered it fit to do that then it is he who is liable answer for this. But the appellant, in order to put the records straight, is even now ready to submit the receipts for authentication of their veracity and in the event of the wild allegation of forgery found false then suitable exemplary legal action will be taken against the objector i.e Fake Secretary of the Society.
While replying another wholly irrational and illogical plea about the complainant-appellant not being the member of the Society is not only funny but totally absurd. The Ld. AR is requested to know the law once again about anybody (what to speak of the Counsel for the 4 members) setting the law in motion. Even the last but one predecessor RCS namely TajomTaloh had 2 years ago adversely commented on such a non-sensical objection raised in the matter and also the 4 members depositing the demanded amount in the actual and factual bank account of the Society in compliance to its written Orders meaning the instructions of the Secretary. All this is a matter of record. Extract. Extract in the form of photocopy running into 3 pages submitted by the Society to the High Court who is none other than the husband of the Fantum Treasurer is attached herewith as Ann. 'B' for the perusal of this Hon'ble Commission. In substance, the pleas raised by the Ld. A.R at the instance of the tainted Fake Secretary are totally specious, merit-less, logic-chopping and virtually moth-eaten and therefore liable to be junked/ignored.
Further, the Ld. A.R has been kind enough to supply belatedly a list of 266 members of the Society (which was sent to the DDA on 18-04- 1984) vide his letter No. F.No.47/Misc/CIC/2014-15/RCS/1897 dated 30.04.2015. But he has not clarified as to why this information was suppressed by it for over 3 long decades and why was it not furnished to the appellant by 10th Dec., 2008 as per the final Orders passed by the then IC (SG) dated 01.12.2008. It all goes to show the malicious and mala-fide intentions of the office of RCS and the outcome of the collusion and collaboration of both the corrupt or inefficient / lethargic staff of the RCS Officers governed and goaded by the then infamous CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 7 Watchdog/Regulator RCS, one Narayan Diwakar. In this view of the matter, it can safely be concluded that all this is a rigmarole manufactured by the Ld. A.R to confuse this Hon'ble Commission about the highly prejudicial acts which have proved to be of utmost detriment to the 4 members interests represented by the Counsel and hundreds of other members of the Society in general. Such a mischief of highly menacing proportions can be practised only with the connivance of officer/s of the governmental-monitoring agencies. After all, what was the purpose of creating the Department of Coop. Societies by the Government spending Crores&Crores of rupees every month only to watch the interests of the members and not to indulge in corrupt practices especially when it was a Regulator/Watchdog of the Societies. It is considered pertinent to state that the deliberate non-follow-up of the Civil Writ Petition No.614/95 filed by the Society against the DDA for claiming the refund/recovery with upto date interest of the forfeited amount of Rs. 32,18,767.50 (out of the total deposited amount of Rs. 63,98,280/- being the cost of the land allotted to the Society at Dwarka by refunding the amount of Rs. 31,76,512.50) and its consequent dismissal on 04.02.2009 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Had this amount been recovered from DDA this figure of Rs.32,18,767.50 would have swelled to over 2½Crores of rupees by now. Further, it should also be noted that these two bogus Office-Bearers i.e. Fake Secretary and Fantum Treasure had immediately recovered/got refunded their respective deposits made by them on the basis of their 2 shares from the refund of Rs.31,76,512.50 affected by the DDA. In other words, they did not have any stake/interest left in the recovery of the said amount of Rs.32,18,767.50 from the DDA through the good Offices of the Hon'ble HC of Delhi but they did file the said CWP No.614/96 therein to earn the undeserved and unethical professional fee from the Society and that is why they allowed the CWP get this dismissed.
The other most condemnable/ridiculous plea of supplying the list of 266 members of the Society (sent to the DDA as on 18.04.1984) and the Audit Report for the year 1989-1990 along with Balance Sheet (carrying forged signature of the President Mr. I.N. Bhalla in the handwriting of the Secretary Mr. R.B. Hans on 3 sheets) by the respondent AR representing the RCS office under the cover of his letter F.No.47/Misc/CIC/2014-15/RCS/1897 dated 30.04.2015 only after a quarter-century just to escape the punishment and the consequences of criminal action, amounts only to a ruse or camouflage clumsily attempted by him just to mislead the Hon'ble Commission and for defeating the ends of justice.
The immediate next unnumbered para contains the directions to the appellant to clarify the reasons of the 4 members depositing the demand amounts directly to the bank instead of to the Society and also appointing the next date of hearing being 18.06.2016 at 2:30 PM. In this regard, it may kindly be noted that the demanded amounts from the members were required to be deposited by Demand Drafts / Bankers' Cheques etc. specifically by the Secretary and the Treasurer who were CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 8 unauthorisedly and illegally holding the charge of key office-bearers of the Society with the overt and covert support of the most corrupt but competent department of Coop. Societies. Accordingly, the deposited amounts were lodged in the Bank as per their own instructions. On this issue also, the then RCS who was heading the department two years ago had adversely commented against the office-bearers of the Society on the subject saying that it was a most flimsy objection just to evade/avoid the liability likely to be fastened on them by the Hon'ble CIC. Trust this clarifies the position.
Again, the next para following the above contains the specific directions of the Hon'ble CIC to the Ld. AR of the RCS Office to unambiguously bring on record and highlight the names of the earlier PIOs' subsequent to 01.12.2008 along with their respective explanations for not complying with the Orders of the Commission. The appellant too simultaneously has been directed to produce the receipt of payment deposited with the Bank for the perusal and satisfaction about the correctness thereof of the Hon'ble CIC which of course is being accorded compliance by him".
7. During the hearing of non-compliance of CIC Order, officers again represented on 18.06.2015, and it was disposed of on 23.06.2015. The operating portion of the Order dated 23.06.2015 is as under:
"3. ...the PIO Mr. A.K. Verma, AR along with Mr. L.S. Rawat were present before the Commission and made oral and written submissions dated 20-5-2015 a copy of which was also given to the appellant and submitted that the order of CIC dated 1-12-2008 has been complied with. They had sent the list of members of the defunct society as on 8-12-2008 to the appellant as per the order of CIC. They have also furnished to the appellant the audited accounts of the society up to the year 2008. The society was wound up long back. A liquidator was appointed and the liquidation proceedings have almost reached to a final stage. Any grievance/additional document, which the appellant is having, can be submitted before the Liquidator. The respondent officers have also offered inspection of the available record to the appellant, if he is still not satisfied, for which the appellant was not ready to avail the same.
4. In view of the above, the Commission is satisfied that the CIC order dated 1-12-2008 had been complied by the respondent authority and hence the penalty proceedings are dropped."
8. The appellant has challenged the order dated 23.6.2015 (of dropping penalties by this Commission) before Delhi High Court, by filing a writ petition W.P.(C) 1764/2016 titled as S.D. Wadhwa v/s. CPIO, O/o. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, New Delhi. While dismissing on 04.03.2016, the Delhi High observed as follows:
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 9 "1. None is present for the petitioner. Even a Passover is not sought. Consequently, this Court has no other option but to proceed ahead with the matter.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd June, 2015 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), whereby it has dropped penalty proceedings against the respondent on the ground that the order of the CIC had been complied with. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"3. In response to the above order, the PIO Mr. A.K.Verma, AR along with Mr. L.S. Rawat were present before the Commission and made oral and written submissions dated 20-5-2015 a copy of which was also given to the appellant and submitted that the order of CIC dated 1-12-2008 has been complied with. They had sent the list of members of the defunct society as on 8-12-2008 to the appellant as per the order of CIC. They have also furnished to the appellant the audited accounts of the society up to the year 2008. The society was wound up long back. A liquidator was appointed and the liquidation proceedings have almost reached to a final stage. Any grievance/additional document, which the appellant is having, can be submitted before the Liquidator. The respondent officers have also offered inspection of the available record to the appellant, if he is still not satisfied, for which the appellant was not ready to avail the same.
4. In view of the above, the Commission is satisfied that the CIC order dated 1-12- 2008 had been complied by the respondent authority and hence the penalty proceedings are dropped."
3. In the petition, it has been averred that the CIC failed to appreciate the ordeal suffered by four members of the society, and their counsel for the last 20 years.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the present petition has been filed by a counsel on the ground that four affected members are near and dear relatives of his.
5. In the opinion of this Court, though the petitioner-counsel may be closely related to the information seekers, yet that would not give him a locus standi to file a petition under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan Vs. R.A. Haritas, LPA 777/2010 decided on 29th March, 2012 has held that an information seeker has no locus in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. It was further held in the said judgment imposition of penalty is not mandatory in each and every case.
7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed".
9. Suppressing the fact of this dismissal of writ petition, Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, eleven months after dismissal chose to approach the Chief Information Commissioner on 09.02.2017 as under:
"Further to my complaint of even reference dated 28th July, 2017 along with the Delhi High Court's Order dated 13.07.2017 I repeat that I was startled, shocked and highly disappointed to read the contents of the above said 2nd Appeal Decision given by Hon. Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner given on 30.03.2015 followed by another Decision on the same subject dated 23.06.2015 preceded by the Order / Decision dated 01.12.2008 given by the predecessor CIC Ld. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi for CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 10 which I earnestly request and respectfully pray to your benign ship to kindly minutely peruse all the 3 decision and then take a decision at your end only on the matter remanded by Mr. Justice Vibhu Bhakhru on the above-said date of 13.07.2017 preceded by 2 Orders dated 23.09.2016 and 23.05.2017.
Needless to add that the applicant / appellant shall also be heard on the day and date fixed for the hearing of the respondent i.e. RCS, N. Delhi, Xerox copy of the notices related to File No. CIC / AT / A / 2008/000805/SA dated 12.02.2015 and 02.06.2015 issued by one Shri Babu Lal, Dy. Registrar to the Ld., CIC, Hon. Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) on the basis of which the last decision as pronounced, too, for your minute perusal.
Your Honour may kindly note that the first 2 decisions dated 01.12.2008 taken by IC (SG) and the other one dated 30.03.2015 pronounced by Hon, Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) had been/were allowed partially but on the other hand the 3rd one dated 23.06.2016 was again pronounced by the later i.e. Ld. M. Sridhar Acharyulu.
The 3rd Order, in the humble view of the appellant/petitioner was the most perverse, highly irresponsible and the most unfortunate one and the same being impugned one has been set aside and CIC is directed to examine the question whether any penalty is required to be imposed against the respondent on the parameters as set out in Sec. 20 of the Act. It is further directed by the HC of Delhi that the respondent will be provided full opportunity to meet all allegations and participate in such inquiry against him. In this context, kindly do read the para - 5 of the Order dated 13.07.2017.
In fine, it is hoped and expected that any administrative action, if any, required to be taken under intimation to the aggrieved appellant in WP(C) No. 7833/2016 for his information, perusal and record. Matter being 9 years old may kindly be decided expeditiously and at the earliest so as to soothe the injured feelings and dignity of the appellant/counsel who is 84 now and suffered massive heart-attack on 18.11.2011.
While concluding, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon. Chief Commissioner shall graciously be pleased to grant personal interview to the appellant on any working day but preferably after lunch only."
10. There is no review provision under RTI Act. Any petition against an order after 19 months will have no consequences of any kind. Suppressing the fact of dismissal of writ petition, Mr. Pankaj Roy Wadhwa, one of the four persons, whom appellant is allegedly representing, filed another writ petition on the same order of this Commission, which also got dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 31.05.2017 titled as Pankaj Roy Wadhwa and Ors. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors. numbered as W.P.(C) 5133/2017, held as under:
"1. The present petition has been filed by four petitioners, who claim to be members of the respondent No.4/Sarai Sidhi Ilaqa Co-operative Group Housing CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 11 Society Ltd. praying inter alia for issuing directions for refund of a sum of Rs. 32,18,767.50 with interest, that the respondent No.3/DDA had forfeited on cancelling the allotment of a parcel of land made in favour of the Society, vide letter dated 28.02.1994. Pertinently, at that time, the respondent No.3/DDA had refunded a sum of Rs. 31,76,414.50 paise to the respondent No.4/Society.
2. Vide order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the respondent No.1/RCS, the Society was directed to refund the amounts deposited by the members with interest at the prevailing rate after proper verification of the members. It is claimed by Mr. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the petitioners that though the respondent No.4/Society had filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C) 614/1995, challenging the action of the respondent No.3/DDA of forfeiting the earnest money of Rs. 32,18,767.50 paise and the said petition was admitted for regular hearing on 12.10.1995, the same was not prosecuted effectively by the Society. As a result, the petition was dismissed on 11.10.2005. Subsequently, on a restoration application being filed by the Society, the said petition was restored to its original position vide order dated 21.11.2005 and yet again, as none had appeared on behalf of the Society, it was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.02.2009.
3. After waiting for eight long years, the petitioner have filed the present petition stating inter alia that respondent No.3/DDA be directed to refund the earnest money deposited by the respondent No.4/Society together with interest and call upon the office bearers of the Society to compensate them for the harassment and agony caused to them.
4. A perusal of the order dated 29.01.2003, passed by the respondent No.1/RCS reveals that the petitioner were duly represented by Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, Advocate in the said proceedings as well and he had requested for refund of their deposits alongwith interest on a grievance that the Society had refunded amounts to several other members, but not to them.
5. The plea for refund of amounts deposited by the petitioners herein was however opposed on behalf of the respondent No.4/Society and it was stated that 31 members had not been refunded their deposits on different grounds. An objection was also taken to the effect that Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, Advocate was not authorized to appear on behalf of the four members (the petitioners herein) except for the petitioner No.1, which plea was upheld by the respondent No.1/RCS in the order dated 29.01.2003. Ultimately, the respondent No.1/RCS had opined that the Society must return the amount deposited by the members, with interest.
6. If the petitioner had a grievance against the order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the respondent No.1/RCS, they ought to have taken immediate steps to assail the same before the appellate forum, which for reasons best known to them, was not done.
7. We may further note that a specific averment has been made by the petitioners in para 19 of the petition to the effect that the petitioners have filed a writ petition against the Society, which is pending adjudication in this Court. On calling upon learned counsel for the petitioners to furnish the details of the said petition, he states that the submission made in para 19 above is incorrect and erroneous and that no such petition has been filed by the petitioners.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 12
8. We have also enquired from the counsel for the petitioners that if the petitioners were aware of the fact that the respondent No.4/Society had not been diligent in prosecuting the writ petition filed by it in this Court that was dismissed for non-prosecution on two occasions, whether any steps have been taken by the petitioners or other similarly placed members of the Society to seek intervention or permission to step into the shoes of the Society to prosecute the said petition, which was dismissed as long back on 04.02.2009. However, learned counsel states that no such steps have been taken by the petitioners in that regard.
9. In the course of arguments, we have on our own made efforts to verify the status of W.P.(C) 64/1995 from the website of the High Court and it transpires that the said petition was listed on 10.02.2015, before the Bench of Gita Mittal, J and P.S. Teji, J. and the following order was passed on an application filed by the petitioners:-
"CM Nos.20557-20559/2014 in W.P.(C) 614/1995
1. The applicant makes a grievance that he was compelled to move these applications as the amounts deposited by him since the year 1992 have not been refunded by the petitioner-Society. The petitioner complains that several representations to the Society as well as the Registrar of Cooperative Societies have been of no avail.
2. The writ petition was filed by the Society assailing the action of forfeiture of its deposit by the DDA. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as back as on 4th February, 2009. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not a party herein.
3. Given the nature of the grievance of the appellant, the present applications are not the correct remedy. The applicant really has a dispute with the petitioner-Society for which appropriate proceedings under Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, have to be initiated.
4. In view of the above position, learned counsel for the applicant prays for leave to withdraw these applications with liberty to invoke the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
5. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
Dasti."
10. When confronted with the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioners has no explanation to offer except for admitting that he did file an application on behalf of the petitioners herein, in the aforesaid petition, which was ultimately withdrawn.
11. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have a remedy under Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, the present petition is even otherwise, hopelessly barred by limitation. Besides the above, we are not inclined to entertain the petition as the petitioners have deliberately withheld material information from the Court and been selective in the averment made in the petition thereby keeping the Court in the dark with regard to the application filed by them in W.P.(C) 614/1995 and the orders passed thereon. But for the fact that we had smelt a rat, taken steps to dig out the proceedings in the above petition, the order 10.02.2015 would have never come to light.
12. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed in limine.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 13
11. After two writ petitions against this Commission's order by S. D. Wadhwa and Pankaj Roy Wadhwa were dismissed, suppressing this fact, Mr. Pankaj Roy Wadhwa filed writ petition again. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 13.07.2017 in Pankaj Roy Wadhwa and Ors. vs. CPIO, O/o. Registrar Coop Societies numbered as W.P.(C) 7833/2016, held as under:
"1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 23.06.2015 (hereafter 'the impugned order') whereby the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dropped the proceedings initiated against the CPIO, Registrar Cooperative Societies, New Delhi. The proceedings were initiated since the CIC found that information as sought for by the petitioner was not furnished against the order passed by CIC to such effect. The impugned order indicates that CIC had, by an order dated 30.03.2015, also directed the CPIO to show cause as to why maximum penalty not be imposed against the CPIO for not complying with the orders of the CIC dated 01.12.2008.
2. In response to the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2015, the CPIO made oral and written submissions before the CIC. A plain reading of the impugned order indicated that CIC dropped the proceedings principally for the reason that the petitioner was provided the information, subsequently, in compliance with the CIC's order dated 01.12.2008 and further the petitioner was also offered inspection of the available records. In terms of Section 18(2) of the Right o Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act'), the CIC is required to initiate an enquiry where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to enquire into the matter.
3. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC did consider it necessary for an enquiry to be held. Thus it was incumbent on CIC to conclude the same and to examine whether CPIO(s) had failed to provide the information without reasonable cause. Section 20 of the Act further provides for imposition of penalty in case the CIC, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, is of the opinion that the Public Information Officer has without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the Act or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly gave incomplete and misleading information or has destroyed information, which was the subject of the request.
4. Thus, in the present case, the CIC was required to determine (a) whether there was any reasonable cause for not furnishing the information within the time specified and (b) whether the information provided was incorrect and/or incomplete. The plain reading of the impugned order does not indicate that the CIC has satisfied itself on the aforesaid aspects"
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and CIC is directed to examine the question whether any penalty is required to be imposed against the respondent on the parameters as set out in Section 20 of the Act. Needless to mention to meet all allegations and participate in such enquiry as maybe taken against him.
6. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 14
7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. Order dasti."
12. The appellant, thus, suppressed fact of dismissal of first writ petition in his representation to the Chief Information Commissioner, suppressed before Delhi High Court in second writ petition, and again suppressed the fact of dismissal of two writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also before this Commission. One important point to be noted is that there are two writ petitions by Mr. Pankaj Roy Wadhwa, one was dismissed. In the second writ petition of Mr. Pankaj Roy Wadhwa, the Hon'ble High Court on 13.07.2017 directed CIC to examine the question whether any penalty is required to be imposed as per section 20 of the Act. The Commission accordingly issued notices to both the parties and scheduled hearing on 09.10.2017.
Proceedings on 09.10.2017:
13. Both the parties were present and they were given opportunity to present their case, which they availed. Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, a senior citizen and a senior Advocate representing the other appellants i.e. Pankaj Roy Wadhwa etc. stated that he was harassed, the officers did not respect his seniority and refused to give needed information, besides, not redressing his grievance. The appellant during the hearing on 09.10.2017 claimed that the Commission was misled by the respondent authority, which resulted in dropping of penalty charges. He alleged that the records were made to disappear, because of which the respondent authority could not give complete information. The appellant in his detailed oral submissions stated that the erstwhile Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi passed an order on 01.12.2008, partially allowing the second appeal and directing the respondent authority to provide information. The appellant alleged that the order dated 01.12.2008 was not fully complied and filed a non-compliance complaint. On this complaint, the Commission heard the parties, directed to comply with the earlier order and report the compliance and issued show-cause notice for alleged non-compliance. He further alleged that the Assistant Registrar operating the Audit and Management wing did not furnish any reports though directed by this Commission. The appellant Mr. S.D. Wadhwa asked the Commission to issue hearing notices to Mr. M.G. Satya, the present CPIO and Mr. N. Diwakar, the then RCS, alleging that these two officers were responsible for not providing the reports.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 15
14. Public Authority was represented by Mr. M.L. Gupta; Mr. B.K. Puri, Dy. Secy (now working at Ministry of Home Affairs); Mr. S.S. Baijwan, (now working as AC[HR] - Department of Trade & Taxes); Mr. L.R. Meena, Ex-ARCS (now working as Dy. Secy [PWD]). The Commission examined the responses of concerned officers Mr. A.K. Verma and Mr. L.S. Rawat to the show-cause notice issued earlier. Shri A.K. Verma, Asst. Registrar (Sec-VII) who gave written responses on 30.04.2015 and 20.05.2015, explained his case orally and also defended the explanation of Mr. L.S. Rawat. He reiterated that they have sincerely complied with the orders of the Commission dated 01.12.2008, they made efforts to cull out the list of members from out of a society, which was defunct for the last 30 years and furnished that list to the appellant along with the audit reports.
15. In the written response dated 30.04.2015 to show-cause notice, Mr. A.K. Verma, CPIO explained how the department initiated efforts to take out the old records pertaining to year 1983. The officers were expressing doubts about genuineness of receipts given by the appellant saying they were without authentication. The officers were also questioning Mr. S.D. Wadhwa's authority to represent the other three members without any written authorization. They requested the Commission to record that he misled the Commission by not disclosing some of the facts and that he did not approach with clean hands. They reiterated that the Society was not functioning for the last 30 years and hence the records could not be readily traceable. However, they said that they could cull out the list of 266 members out of 300 members that was sent to the DDA including 68 promoters and 232 other members, which was submitted by the society on 18.04.1984 along with audit report pertaining to the year 1989-90 and balance sheet for the year 1990-91. The appellant criticized this explanation as a sham and raised certain objections to which Mr. A.K. Verma replied on 30.05.2015 again, which is self explanatory.
16. Mr. A.K. Verma said that he has again provided the appellant a chance to visit RCS on any working day to see the records pertaining to the Society, thereafter the Commission heard the parties on 18.06.2015 and examined the information furnished on compliance with order of 01.12.2008 and then decided to drop the penalty proceedings. The appellant found the explanation as not satisfactory and wrote to the Chief Information Commissioner against this order CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 16 saying the order "most perverse, highly irresponsible and the most unfortunate one". The Delhi High Court has upheld this Order not once but twice.
17. The Commission examined the responses of Mr. A.K. Verma, Asst. Registrar (Sec-VII), who was the CPIO as on the order of CIC dated 01.12.2008. Because the complaint was that he did not comply with the orders dated 01.12.2008. The allegations against other officers were made for the first time during the proceedings on 09.10.2017. Regarding request of appellant to call Mr. M.G. Satya and Mr. N. Diwakar for hearing, the Commission found no relevance to call for the presence of these two officers because once the complaint is admitted and show-cause notice is issued, it is between the Commission and officer accused of non-compliance of the CIC order. Neither the complainant nor other officers have any role to play in deciding the penalty proceedings. However, the Commission heard the complainant before dropping the penalty proceedings and also as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is necessary to understand the text of Section 20 of RTI Act, 2005, that explains:
20. Penalties.--
(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub‑section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty‑five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 17 (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub ‑ section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.
18. Thus, under this section, the Commission can impose penalty only when the information is denied without reasonable cause. The Commission examined the responses given by Shri A.K. Verma, Asst. Registrar (Sec-VII) and Shri L.S. Rawat, in reply to show-cause notices, found that they have searched out information from the society, which was defunct for around 30 years and furnished to the appellant as directed by the CIC on 01.12.2008 within time prescribed by the Commission. The appellant was offered inspection of records after the CIC order dated 01.12.2008. Relevant paragraph of their submission is:
The information pertaining to the year 1983 and society has not functioning for the last 30 years therefore, the record was not readily traceable, however, somehow the information i.e., (1) list of 266 members which was sent to the DDA out of a list of 300 (68 promoters & 232 others) members submitted by the society on 18.04.1984 (ii) Audit report pertaining to the year 1989-90 and alongwith balance sheet for the 1990-91 is made available to the applicant."
19. On perusal of records, there is nothing to say that these two officers were not positively coming forward to give the information. It cannot be said that CIC order was not complied with. The Commission on examination found no lacunae in the oral and written submissions of officers regarding the compliance of the Commission's order dated 01.12.2008. For instance, the officers could give information about the list of members. Out of 300 members list, the respondent authority could provide 266 members list as sent to the DDA to the appellant. The Commission found that there was no denial of information without any reasonable cause. In the process of explaining their stand, the officers alleged CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 18 suppression of certain material facts by the appellant with malafide intentions and raised doubts against the genuineness of the receipts presented by the appellant.
20. The CPIO Mr. A.K. Verma alleged that the Petitioner did not approach with clean hands and pointed out that: (i) the photocopies of the receipts produced by the appellant were all forged; (ii) none of the three members had ever appeared personally or had filed any documents authorizing Mr. S.D. Wadhwa to represent them and that he cannot be considered as their representative, and
(iii) the appellant was silent for 8 long years to file a representation asking DDA to refund the earnest money deposit, genuineness of which is suspicious, because the record does not show the payment of deposit by these claimers. Mr. A.K. Verma insisted that the Commission should record that appellant approached, not with clean hands.
CONCLUSION:
21. For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission did not find any reasonable cause or necessity to conduct an inquiry under section 18(2) of the Act, with regard to compliance of order of CIC dated 01.12.2008. Neither the allegations levelled against appellant, nor allegations levelled by appellant against the officers can be inquired into under RTI Act, 2005 during hearing of complaint of non-compliance. For ready reference, the orders of the Delhi High Court dismissing two writ petitions filed by S. D. Wadhwa and Pankaj Roy Wadhwa against the order of this Commission are enclosed. On thorough reconsideration, after hearing both the parties and perusing the records including the orders of the Delhi High Court, the Commission finds no ground to impose penalty and hence drops the penalty proceedings against the officers of the public authority. Disposed of.
-SD-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (T. K. Mohapatra) Deputy Secretary & Dy. Registrar CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 19 Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt of NCT of Delhi, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street, Old Court Building, New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri S D Wadhwa, D-3, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 20 S.D. Wadhwa v/s. CPIO, O/o. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, New Delhi,, numbered as W.P.(C) 1764/2016.. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.03.2016:
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 21
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 22
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 23
Pankaj Roy Wadhwa and Ors. vs vs.. Registrar Cooperative Societies
and Ors. numbered as W.P.(C) 5133/2017.. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.05.2017.
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 24 CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 25 CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 26 CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 27 CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 28
Pankaj Roy Wadhwa and Ors. vs. CPIO, O/o. Registrar Coop Societies numbered as W.P.(C) 7833/2016. The Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 13.07.2017 13.07 is as under:
CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 29 CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 30 CIC/AT/A/2009/00805/SA Page 31