Central Information Commission
Sunil Bhalla vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
CIC/DDATY/C/2017/106355
Date of Hearing : 14.06.2018
Date of Decision (INTERIM) : 14.06.2018
Date of Final Decision : 21.08.2018
Show Cause Hearing : 11.10.2018
Show Cause Decision : 05.11.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Sunil Bhalla
Respondent : 1. PIO/Dy. Director-(Admn.) North-
West,
DDATY, O/o. the Director-
(Horticulture)/North-west
2. PIO/Dy. Director-(Hort.-III),
DDATY, Horticulture Division
Through:- Mr. Satyendra Pal
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.09.2016
CPIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 18.12.2016
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 31.01.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 16.09.2016, the complainant sought information regarding DDA Park opposite North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Pratibha School, Sayed Village, LIC Colony, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi :-
1. Park is in very bad condition and remains unattended and neglected.
Whether the said park has been handed over to North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
2. If yes, inform date on which the said park was handed over to NDMC.
3. If not handed over to NDMC, provide reasons of not maintaining the park by DDA.
Dy. Director(Admn.), Directorate of Hort.(North-West) vide letter dated 23.09.2016 forwarded the RTI application to the PIO/Dy. Director(Hort.)-III, DDA .
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not received asked information, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present for the hearing. Complainant states that despite filing repeated applications and reminders, no response was received from Dy. Dir. Horticulture, DDA.
The Respondent/PIO, Dy. Dir. Horticulture-III present during the hearing submits a written communication dated 13.06.2018 attaching therewith a reply dated 25.02.2017 whereby the appellant had been duly informed that the park is maintained neat and clean and not transferred to North MCD, but maintained by DDA.
Interim Decision After perusal of relevant records and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission notes that the Dy. Dir. Horticulture should have taken cognisance of such issues about maintenance of parks on his own, as a matter of his official responsibility. However, it is unfortunate that despite bringing it to his attention, by RTI application dated 16.09.2016, he furnished a cursory response dated 25.02.2017 which did not even reach the applicant.
Examination of records of the case reveal that the RTI application dated 16.09.2016 was transferred by Dy. Director (Admn.), Directorate of Hort.(North-
West) vide letter dated 23.09.2016 to the PIO/Dy. Director(Hort.)-III, DDA. However, the Dy. Director, Horticulture-III seems to have received the RTI application only on 14.02.2017 and responded on 23.02.2017. The reply dated 23.02.2017 was not received by the applicant.
In view of the facts of the case, as discussed above, the Commission directs that queries of the applicant require that the instant appeal be converted into Appeal. The current PIO/ Dy. Director(Hort.)-III, DDA - Sh. Satyendra Pal is hereby directed to do the following:
i) furnish Complete Action Taken Report with respect to the maintenance of park located at LIC Colony, Sunder Vihar, to the appellant within one week of receipt of this order, marking a copy of the same to the Commission within 06.07.2018;
ii) submit a detailed affidavit on a non judicial stamp paper, by 06.07.2018 explaining the cause of delay in transmission of the RTI Application forwarded on 23.09.2016 to the O/o Dy. Director Hort.-III on 14.02.2017 (after 5 months) and reason for non receipt of the response dated 23.02.2017 till date by the appellant.
The Commission shall take a final decision in the matter upon perusal of the Affidavit from Sh. Satyendra Pal-Dy. Director, Horticulture-III. In the event of non compliance of either of the aforementioned directions, the Registry shall initiate non compliance proceedings against PIO/ Sh. Satyendra Pal-Dy. Director, Horticulture-III, DDA.
Final Decision: 21.08.2018
1. The Respondent has submitted certain documents, viz. a covering letter dated 16.07.2018; an affidavit dated 16.07.2018 and a letter dated 11.07.2018 purportedly the Action Taken Report.
2. The affidavit was directed to be filed by 16.07.2018 and is clearly filed belatedly, without furnishing any reason for the delay. Extracts from the affidavit are as follows:
".......1. I am the respondent in the aforesaid case and fully aware of the facts of the case.
2. It is stated that the RTI Application of Shri Sunil Bhalla, 16.09.2016, duly forwarded by Dy. Director (Admn.) on dated 23.02.2016 was received in the office of the PIO/Dy. Director (Hort.)-3 on dated 26.09.2016 as per record available in this office.
3. The reply of RTI Application was sent to Sh. Sunil Bhalla, Applicant vide Letter No. 10(9)/RTI/2016-17/Hort.- III/DDA/3904 dated 25.02.2017.
4. The Concerned PIO/Dy. Director Hort.-III, Sh. Deena Nath was posted w.e.f 26.09.2017 to 24.02.2017 who was retired on 31.07.2017 from DDA..."
3. Perusal of the letter dated 11.07.2018, issued by Sh. Satyendra Pal, Dy.
Director(Hort.) reveals as follows:
"...The action taken report in respect maintenance of park located in LIC Colony, Sunder Vihar is as under:-
1. The park has been fully developed with grassing plantation, walking track with 1 No. tube well for irrigation purpose of par and at present park is maintain in good condition..."
4. The Affidavit as discussed above thus suffers from i) delay of 10 ten days,
ii) without assigning any reason, iii) contents of paragraph 2 are inconsistent, incoherent and incorrect, since RTI application dated 16.09.2016 is stated to have been forwarded on 23.02.2016 by the Dy. Director (Admn.), which makes no sense at all. The Commission had directed the filing of the Affidavit for a specific purpose; viz. explaining the cause of delay in transmission of the RTI Application forwarded on 23.09.2016 to the O/o Dy. Director Hort.-III on 14.02.2017 (after 5 months) and reason for non receipt of the response dated 23.02.2017 till date by the appellant. The contents of the affidavit fail to explain the specific issue as directed by the Commission and this amounts to deliberate obstruction of the disclosure of specific information, despite specific directions of the Commission. Thus the Commission is constrained to seek explanation from Sh. Satyendra Pal-Dy. Director, Horticulture-III for deliberate and wilful non disclosure of facts in contravention of specific directions of Commission. Registry of this Bench is thus directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE upon Sh. Satyendra Pal-Dy. Director, Horticulture-III to explain why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for intentional non compliance of the specific directions of the Commission. Reply to the Show Cause Notice shall be submitted by the Noticee atleast one week prior to the scheduled date of show cause hearing.
Show Cause Hearing: 11.10.2018 Pursuant to the Commission's abovementioned decision dated 21.08.2018 and in reply to the Show Cause Notice 13.09.2018, a letter dated 03.10.2018 has been received from Sh. Satyendra Pal- PIO/Dy. Director, Horticulture-III, DDA whereby he has submitted the following:
"................Undersigned joined as Dy. Dir.(Hort)3, DDA, Janak Puri only on 03.04.2018 vide EO No. 417 dated 02.04.2018 (photocopy enclosed as per Annex. 3). I have also been holding the additional charge of O/o Director (Hort.)North & West, located at Vikas Minar, ITO, vide EO No. 422 dated 02.04.2018 (photocopy enclosed as per Annex. 4) and looking after the work involving Court Cases, extensive Field Inspections, meetings and other day to day office assignments etc. In response to Commission's Interim Decision dt. 14.06.2018 and Final Decision dt. 21.08.2018, a glance to the following truthful and factual submissions shall sustain my objective to honour the directions of the Hon'ble Commission:
A. Interim Decision dt. 14.06.2018 The Interim Decision dt. 14.06.18 of Hon'ble Commission was received in the O/o PIO/Dy. Dir.(Hort)III, DD only in the late afternoon of Saturday i.e. on 07.07.2018 (Photocopy of diary register and above decision dated 14.06.2018 are enclosed as per Annex. 5 & 6).
The point-wise submissions with regard points (i) and (ii) are as below:
i) Action Taken Report within one week of receipt of this order:
Since the Interim Decision dt. 14.06.18 of Hon'ble Commission was received in the O/o PIO/Dy. Dir.(Hort)III, DDA only in the late afternoon of Saturday i.e. on 07.07.2018, as such, our reply could not meet the deadline given by the Commission i.e. 06.07.2018. Orders of the Commission were diarized vide Dy.
No. 934 dt. 07.07.2018 (as per Annex. 5).
However, one week's time permitted by the Commission i.e. up to 14.07.18 still the Action Taken Report along with photographs of the Park in question was furnished to the RTI Applicant Sh. Sunil Bhalla on 11.07.2018 vide this office letter no. F. 10(1)Misc/2018-19/Hort.III/DDA/518 (photocopy enclosed as per Annex. 7).
............................................................................................. .....................
(a) There was no delay of 05 months in forwarding the RTI Application dt. 16.09.2016 of Sh. Sunil Bhalla dt. 16.09.2016 as same was forwarded by Dy. Dir.(Admn.) on 23.09.2016 (wrongly typed as 23.02.2016 in affidavit) and same was received in the O/o PIO/Dy. Dir. (Hort.)III, DDA on 26.09.2016 as per available office records. (photocopy of diary register is enclosed as per Annex. 8). Kindly refer S.No. 2 of the Affidavit dt. 16.07.18 (photocopy enclosed as per Annex. 9).
I very humbly plead before the Hon'ble Commission to condone the typography error please...."
Furthermore, the Noticee has mentioned that the then PIO/Dy. Director (Hort.)III, DDA was Sh. Deena Nath, who held post at the time of receipt of the RTI application dated 26.09.2016 and till the reply dated 25.02.2017. Decision: 05.11.2018 Combined reading of the submissions from the current PIO-Noticee Sh. Satyendra Pal has brought the following points to be considered:
1. the Noticee has joined as Dy. Dir.(Hort)3, DDA, Janak Puri only on 03.04.2018;
2. complete information has been furnished by the current PIO/Noticee vide affidavit dated 16.07.2018, in terms of the Commission's order dated 14.06.2018;
3. the RTI application dated 16.09.2016 was forwarded by Dy. Dir.(Admn.) on 23.09.2016 and same was received in the O/o PIO/Dy. Dir. (Hort.)III, DDA on 26.09.2016 as per available office records;
4. the then PIO-Sh. Deena Nath, who held post on 26.09.2016, received the RTI application and sent the reply dated 25.02.2017, retired on 31.07.2017 from DDA.
The Noticee has appeared during the hearing on 11.10.2018 before the Commission and reiterated the same contentions as already explained vide the reply dated 03.10.2018.
Upon hearing the submissions of the Noticee- Sh. Satyendra Pal- PIO/Dy. Director, Horticulture-III, DDA and perusal of his explanation/reply to Show Cause, the Commission is convinced that there was no malafide on his part. The Noticee joined the current post as Dy. Director, Horticulture-III, DDA on 03.04.2018 and has explained the cause of delay in furnishing of the affidavit and also clarified the inconsistency, which had crept in the affidavit dated 16.07.2018, owing to a typographical error.
The explanation/Reply dated 03.10.2018 submitted by the Noticee is found reasonable and it is beyond doubt that available information has been duly furnished by the Noticee vide the affidavit dated 16.07.2018. Since the erstwhile PIO has already retired and available information has already been furnished, no further action is deemed necessary in this case. The Show Proceedings initiated against the Noticee are thus waived off.
The case is directed to be closed and file be consigned to Record Room.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer