Central Information Commission
Mr Harish Kumar vs Parliment Of India on 7 May, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000546/SS
Dated: 07.05.2014.
Name of Appellant : Shri Harish Kumar
Name of Respondent : Lok Sabha Secretariat
Date of Hearing : 05.03.2014
ORDER
This has reference to Commission's interim order of even umber dated 06.03.2014, in which the Commission held as follows: "Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that reply provided by Lok Sabha and DUAC on Point No. 7 of the RTI application are contradictory. The CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat has informed the appellant that Approval of DUAC was not required to be taken for installation of statues of National Leaders in Parliament House Complex and that Rule 124 of the "Direction by the Speaker of Lok Sabha" gives the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha about the Parliament House Estate. On the other hand the CPIO, DUAC has stated in his reply that the proposal for installation of statues are to be got approved from the Commission in terms of Section 11 of the DUAC Act, 1973. In this regard the Commission would like to hear both the respondent from DUAC and the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
2. The matter was listed for hearing on 30.04.2014. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Kaushal Sarkar, Addl. Director, Shri Sanjev Sharma, Addl. Director, Shri K. Sona, Under Secretary and 2 Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000546/SS Shri Arun Kumar, Under Secretary from Lok Sabha Secretariat and Shri V.K. Tyagi, CPIO and Shri Amit Mukherji Consultant from Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC).
3. The CPIO, DUAC reiterates the position stated in his reply dated 22.11.2012 that the proposal for installation of statues in Parliament House Complex are to be got approved from DUAC in terms of Section 11 of the DUAC Act, 1973. He however clarifies that DUAC is a recommendatory authority and any enforcement is to be done by local bodies.
4. The respondent CPIO from the Lok Sabha Secretariat informs the Commission that in an identical appeal filed by the appellant in case No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000460, the Commission had vide its order dated 11.6.2010 adjudicated as follows: "We find that the objection is with regard to the legality of the respondents' action, which is not for this Commission to adjudicate upon."
5. An appeal filed by the appellant on the same issue has been adjudicated upon by the Commission vide its aforementioned order dated 11.6.2010, which is reiterated in the present appeal as well.
(Sushma Singh) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 3 Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000546/SS Address of the parties:
Shri Harish Kumar, 628/3, Shivaji Road, Pul Mithai, Delhi-110006.
The Under Secretary/CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi-110001.
The Joint Secretary/FAA, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House, New Delhi-110001.
The CPIO, Delhi Urban Art Commission, India Habitat Centre, Core 6-A, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003.