Central Information Commission
B Mohanakumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 June, 2020
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/2018/163306-BJ
Mr. B. Mohanakumar
(E mail [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Asstt. Vigilance Officer (Adm.) - I,
Delhi Development Authority,
7th Floor, B-Block, Vikas Sadan,
INA, New Delhi - 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.06.2020
Date of Decision : 04.06.2020
Date of RTI application 18.08.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 28.09.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 08.10.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding his complaint dated 05.10.2017 to the CVC against some officials of SDMC and DDA, the detailed daily progress and Action Taken Report on his complaint dated 05.10.2017 received from CVC, from the date of its receipt; the ATR on his letters addressed to Shri Hardeep Singh Puri, Hon'ble Minister of State for H&UA & others dated 06.06.2018 and to Shri Rajnath Singh, Hon'ble Minister of Home Affairs & Others dated 16.07.2018 of a copy marked to the CVO/Vice-Chairman from the date of its receipt. He had also sought for the inspection of files. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.10.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that the case was under progress and therefore, the daily status report could not be furnished.
Page 1 of 6HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. B. Mohanakumar through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Jai Kanwar, Asstt. Dir. (Vig.) through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was wrongly denied by the CPIO/FAA under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the FAA, vide its order dated 08.10.2018 had suitably replied in the matter. On being questioned by the Commission why the CPIO had not responded the application within the stipulated time frame, no cogent reply was offered by the Respondent and he further submitted that the application was not put up before the concerned officer. The Respondent further submitted that the subject under consideration was sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 05.09.2017. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and stated that the submission made by the Respondent was wrong and misleading. Furthermore, the Appellant informed that he had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.11.2018 and the same was admitted by the Court on 04.12.2018. He consistently maintained that the action taken report on his applications should be furnished to him as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No further justification was made by the Respondent for denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Complainant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought Page 2 of 6 information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Page 3 of 6 Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Furthermore, in the context of providing his own information to the information seeker, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein in the context of disclosing the action taken on a complaint filed by the information seeker it was held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints."
With regard to denial of information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 wherein it was held as under:-
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 had held that :
"19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation...............Page 4 of 6
22. ...........The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in the light of the decisions cited above as also the perceptible delay in responding to the RTI application, the Commission directs the Vice Chairman, DDA to depute an officer to enquire into the matter and fix accountability and responsibility on the delinquent officer and submit its report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email (E mail [email protected]) to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission also instructs the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application of the Appellant and furnish Action Taken Report on his Complaints dated (as mentioned in the RTI application) in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within the above stipulated time period.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 04.06.2020
Page 5 of 6
Copy to:-
1. The Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, 6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054
2. Vice Chairman, DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023
3. CVO, DDA, Room No. 702, B-Block, 7th Floor, INA, New Delhi-110023 Page 6 of 6