Central Information Commission
Yudhamanyu vs Irrigation And Flood Control ... on 20 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IAFCD/A/2023/621579
Yudhamanyu .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Executive Engineer, Civil Division No. VII,
Irrigation and Flood Control Department,
Rohini Office Complex, Sector - 15,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 16.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 19.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.04.2023
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2023 seeking the following information:
This RTI request pertains to the work executed by the department, entitled Restoration of road and construction of both side RCC drains in Swatantra Nagar, A Part Main road at Narela in District North (REGN. Number 197A) AC.
01. I want to know, 1 Persons(s) or Authority asking the I and FC department for carrying out the said work.
2. Proposal given for getting the said work executed, and the person (s) giving the proposal.
3. Person(s) giving the Sanction to the proposal, giving it the Shape of Tender.
4. Details of the work executed, including the Aims and Objectives.
5. Person(s) or authority carrying out the Scrutiny of the work (after the completion) to ensure the Achievement of Aims and Objectives set.
6. Whether the work was fully completed or left in the middle, give details thereof.
7. Give the scheme of disposal of water, collected from the Streets in Swatantra Nagar through both side RCC drains.
8. Name the govt. authority responsible for maintaining the both side RCC drains.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2023 stating as under:
1. Hon'ble Area M.LA Sh. Sharad Kumar Chauhan.
2. As above.
3. On the Behalf of U.D. Deptt. D.C.A of I&FC Deptt. has given the sanction.
4. To provide the basic amenities to the local residents.
5. As above.
6. Road work was fully completed and due to public hindrance the drain work could not be completed.
7. The proposal for outfall of colony drain in PWD drain at Bawana Narela road.
8. North MCD.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.08.2024 had given directions to the PIO to give reply on point Nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application.
Page 2 of 6In compliance with FAA order, the CPIO vide letter dated 06.08.2024 had given revised reply which states as under:
"In compliance of order no. SE/FC-II/SW/Appeal/ID No. 23/1&FC/2024-25/1244 dated 06.08.2024. In this connection, the point wise reply is as under:-
4. Work detail (Copy enclosed).
5. All the executed work under this agreement shall have free maintenance period/defect liability period for 5 years from the date of completion of project"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Pradeep M Naik, Executive Engineer & PIO and Shri Raveendra Kumar, Superintending Engineer & FAA present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that no information has been provided to him by the Respondent on point Nos. 4 and 5 of his RTI application.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 17.02.2023, complete point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Further, as per the directions of the FAA, on 06.08.2024, revised information on point Nos. 4 and 5 has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Page 3 of 6 Appellant is aggrieved that till date information on point Nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application has not been provided to him by the Respondent on his RTI application. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant.
The Commission observes that the reply given by the Respondent on point No. 5 of the RTI application is incomplete and not tenable as per the RTI application. The Respondent has not informed the authority carrying out the Scrutiny of the work to the Appellant. Further, such nature of information must be available in public domain.
In light of the above facts and circumstances, the Respondent is directed to re- examine point No. 5 of the RTI application dated 18.01.2023 of the Appellant and give revised and updated information to the Appellant, free of cost, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The Commission further observes that there is a delay in providing complete information to the Appellant as per his RTI application. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure replies/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per RTI Act.
Further, the Appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance.
The Commission further observes that such generic information must be available in public domain of Respondent Public Authority's website as such nature of expenditure is made from the fund of public exchequer. The RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide maximum information in the public domain through the internet so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Further, once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, the same is no longer accessible as 'right to information'.
Page 4 of 6The Commission would also like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:
"25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of 'Monitoring and Reporting' conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority".
26. "For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act."
In furtherance to the above directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Secretary of Central Information Commission vide letter dated 12.02.2024, has requested the Respondent Public Authority, to take necessary action for implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the Respondent is advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking such information and not any specific record. In pursuance Page 5 of 6 of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Superintending Engineer, FC II, I and FC Department, Rohini Office Complex, S ector-15, Rohini, Delhi-110085.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)