Central Information Commission
Mrneeraj Saxena vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 8 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/C/2015/000160
Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Saxena (Advocate)
20 Naveen Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh-201005
Public Authority : The Dy. Director (A-I) & CPIO
M/o. Urban Development
Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Date of Hearing : 08.03.2016
Date of Decision : 08.03.2016
Presence:
Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Saxena
CPIO : Shri G S Sarkar, Dy. Director & CPIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 19.12.2014, the Petitioner sought information on 4 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 09.01.2015, has provided the part information to the Petitioner.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 15.04.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 06.05.2015, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Petition filed on 03.08.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Petition.
HEARING Petitioner as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION
1. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Neeraj Saxena, Petitioner, vide his petition dated 27.08.2015, requested this Hon. Commission as under:
"a) Recommend penalty under section 20(1)(2) of RTI Act 2005 against PIO Directorate of Estates (DOE) Officials for violating provisions of Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005.Page 1 of 3
b) Direct the Public Authority under section 7(6) to refund prescribed RTI Fee of Rs.
10/- for failing to comply with the time limits specified in section 7(1) to provide information to the applicant.
c) Direct the Public Authority under section 19(8(b) to compensate the applicant/appellant for the loss and detriment suffered."
2. In view of the nature of the prayer clause (supra), the Commissioner feels that Shri Neeraj Saxena, filed petition in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought the required information under Section 19(3) of the RTI ct 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act 2005 and also the penal action against the erring DDA officials under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus, this petition may be legally construed as composite petition in the light of provisions of RTI Act 2005.
3. By virtue of above, the Commission feels that the composite petitions of such nature are not legally tenable, simply because, if the penal action & disciplinary action are allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of Section 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act 2005 would be rendered as redundant and meaningless.
4. Further, in other words, it may be stated here that the required information along with compensation is legally permissible to be provided to the Petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under Sub Clause (1) & Sub Clause (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise.
5. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner feels that in the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act 2005 to file the Composite Petition, the instant composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Secretary The Dy. Director (A-I) & CPIO M/o Urban Development Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan New Delhi-110011 Shri Neeraj Saxena (Advocate) Page 2 of 3 20 Naveen Park, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh-201005 Page 3 of 3