Central Information Commission
Kamaljeet Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2019
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/ िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.(s):-
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138288-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138289-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138290-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138291-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138292-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138293-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104019-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104020-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104021-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104022-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104023-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104024-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104025-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104027-BJ
Adv. Kamaljeet Singh
....अपीलकता/Appellant/
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
PIO/EE(P)/CC - 14, DDA
Office of the PIO/EE (P)/C.C. - 14
Rohini Office Complex, Madhuban Chowk
Sector - 14, Rohini, Delhi - 110085
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2019
Date of Decision : 25.11.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138288-BJ Date of RTI application 25.04.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 04.06.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 08.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.06.2018 Page 1 of 12 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of the award letter of the Agreement No. 3/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2017-18, Name of Work: Development of 153.55 hectares of land in Sector 36 (part) Rohini, Phase-V, Sub Head: Construction of internal roads (12 m, R/W and 9 m R/W) of pocket C-1 and C-2, Sector- 36, Rohini Phase, V, Name of the Agency: M/s Azad Construction Company, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 08.06.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO and EE, RPD-8, DDA dated 07.06.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Appellant. With regard to Second Appeal filed before the Commission by the Appellant, the PIO/EE (P)/ CC14, DDA, vide its letter dated 09.07.2018, provided Para-wise comments on the Second Appeal as received from EE/RPD-8/DDA.
RTI 2 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138289-BJ Date of RTI application 25.04.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 04.06.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 08.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.06.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of the award letter of the Agreement No. 2/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2015-16; the certified copy of the schedule(s) of the aforementioned agreement, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.06.2018, stated that the reply received from EE/RPD- 8/DDA vide letter dated 07.06.2018 was in order and that the same was enclosed for the Appellant's reference wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Appellant. With regard to Second Appeal filed before the Commission by the Appellant dated 18.06.2018, the PIO/EE (P)/ CC14, DDA, vide its letter dated 09.07.2018, provided Para-wise comments on the Second Appeal as received from EE/RPD-8/DDA.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138290-BJ Date of RTI application 25.04.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 04.06.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 08.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.06.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of the award letter of the Agreement No. 4/EE/RPD-Page 2 of 12
8/DDA/2017-18, Name of Work: Development of 153.55 hectares of land in Sector 36 (part) Rohini, Phase-V, Sub Head: Construction of Toe Wall around parks, lots and green area and boundary wall around commercial, CF 6 PSPs etc. in A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1 and C-3, Sector 35, Rohini, Phase, V, Name of the Agency: M/s Azad Construction Company, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.06.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO and EE/RPD-8, DDA dated 07.06.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Appellant. With regard to Second Appeal filed before the Commission by the Appellant dated 18.06.2018, the PIO/EE (P)/ CC14, DDA, vide its letter dated 09.07.2018, provided Para-wise comments on the Second Appeal as received from EE/RPD-8/DDA.
RTI 4 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138291-BJ Date of RTI application 25.04.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 04.06.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 08.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.06.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of the award letter of the Agreement No. 22/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2017-18; the certified copy of the schedule(s) of the aforementioned agreement, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.06.2018, stated that the reply received from EE/RPD- 8/DDA vide letter dated 06.06.2018 was in order and that the same was enclosed for the Appellant's reference wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Appellant. With regard to Second Appeal filed before the Commission by the Appellant dated 18.06.2018, the PIO/EE (P)/ CC14, DDA, vide its letter dated 09.07.2018, provided Para-wise comments on the Second Appeal as received from EE/RPD-8/DDA.
RTI 5 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138292-BJ Date of RTI application 26.03.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 07.05.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 08.06.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.06.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points (i to xii) inter alia regarding the certified copy of agency/contractor who got the tender i/o of NIT No. 7/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2017-18; the certified copy(s) of Administrative Approval and Expenditure Sanction from the Competent Authority with detailed project report having details of all component of Page 3 of 12 tender with specification for each component and estimated cost of the same in r/o tender in query 4(i) of the application, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time frame, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.06.2018, stated that the reply received from EE/RPD-8/DDA vide letter dated 07.06.2018 was in order and that the same was enclosed for the Appellant's reference wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Appellant.
RTI 6 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/138293-BJ Date of RTI application 26.03.2018 CPIO's response 04.05.2018 Date of the First Appeal 07.05.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 14.05.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.06.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points (i to xiv) regarding the certified copy of the total budget allotted to the office of EE/RPD-8 for the FY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as also the expenditure made for the said financial year; number of tender(s) passed by the office of EE/RPD-8 for the aforementioned FYs along with the certified copy(s) of the agreement register of the aforesaid FYs, etc. The PIO and EE (P)/ CC14, DDA, vide its reply dated 04.05.2018 enclosed the response of the EE/RPD-8/DDA dated 03.05.2018 wherein a suitable point-wise response was provided. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response within the stipulated time-frame, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 14.05.2018, concurred with the CPIO's response and the delay caused was deeply regretted since the site staff were busy in the development work of Sector 34 to 37, Rohini, duly monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the appointment for visiting the office of EE/RPD-8/DDA had already been fixed on telephone for 16.05.2018 for selecting the required document by the Appellant. With regard to Second Appeal filed before the Commission by the Appellant dated 18.06.2018, the PIO/EE (P)/ CC14, DDA, vide its letter dated 09.07.2018, provided Para-wise comments as received from EE/RPD-8/DDA.
RTI - 7 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104019-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.07.2018 CPIO's response 05.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 10.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 11.01.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 05/EE/RPD-Page 4 of 12
8/DDA/2015-16 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 05.09.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-8, DDA dated 01.09.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.01.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/RPD-8/DDA, vide its letter dated 30.09.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
RTI - 8 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104020-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.07.2018 CPIO's response 05.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 10.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 11.01.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 06/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2015-16 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 05.09.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-8, DDA dated 04.09.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.01.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-8/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 30.09.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
RTI - 9 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104021-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.07.2018 CPIO's response 05.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 10.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 11.01.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 07/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2017-18 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. Page 5 of 12 The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 05.09.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-8, DDA dated 04.09.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.01.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-8/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 30.09.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104022-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.07.2018 CPIO's response 05.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 10.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 11.01.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 13/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2017-18 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 05.09.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-8, DDA dated 04.09.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.01.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-8/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 30.09.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104023-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.07.2018 CPIO's response 05.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 10.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 11.01.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 18/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2015-16 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 05.09.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-8, DDA dated 01.09.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.01.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed Page 6 of 12 before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-8/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 30.09.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
RTI - 12 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104024-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 30.07.2018 CPIO's response 05.09.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 10.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 11.01.2019 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 24/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2016-17 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 05.09.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-8, DDA dated 31.08.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 11.01.2019 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-8/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 30.09.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
RTI - 13 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104025-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 13.06.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of filing the First appeal 23.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 05.09.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the Agreement No. 16/EE/RPD- 8/DDA/2017-18 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 05.09.2018 concurred with the response of the EE/RPD-8, DDA dated 01.09.2018 (not on the record of the Commission). With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-8/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 01.10.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.Page 7 of 12
RTI - 14 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/104027-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 02.07.2018 CPIO's response 26.07.2018 Date of filing the First appeal 13.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 21.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 28.01.2019 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 19 points (a to s) inter alia regarding the duly certified copy of only the award letter of the NIT No. 11/EE/RPD- 4/DDA/2017-18 alongwith the name(s) of the executing agency and/ or contractor and associated Assistant Engineer (s) and Junior Engineer (s), etc. The CPIO and EE (P)/ CC-14, DDA, vide its reply dated 26.07.2018 enclosed the response of the EE RPD-4, DDA dated 23.07.2018 wherein inspection of documents was allowed to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 21.08.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO. With regard Complaint filed before the Commission by the Complainant, the EE/ RPD-4/DDA, Rohini vide its letter dated 26.02.2019, provided para-wise comments on the Complaint.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant / Complainant: Adv. Kamaljeet Singh along with Ms. Satnam Kaur; Respondent: Mr. Manohar, EE/RPD-8, Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal, PIO/ EE(P)/CC 14 and Mr. V. K. Gupta, EE/ RPD- 6;
The Appellant / Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that in all these matters, although the inspection was offered by the Respondent but it was evasive and vague. He complained that repeatedly he sought date and time for inspection of the said documents but several excuses were made by the Respondent stating their preoccupations with other public activity and therefore the information sought by him was denied. During the hearing, he stated that he would still like to pursue the matters to seek the information sought in these files. A reference was also made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital, (2000) 7 SCC 668 wherein it was opined that every order passed by the quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must be a speaking order. In its reply, the Respondent volunteered inspection of the records as sought by the Appellant / Complainant on an appointed date and time. Considering the apprehensions cited by the Appellant / Complainant alleging the evasive manners of not furnishing the information despite its written commitment, he desired that the Commission could intervene and fix date and time for the said inspection. Accordingly, it was agreed that on 25th / 26th November, 2019 (11.00 AM), the parties would sit together and the inspection of documents in all these matters would be offered to the Appellant / Complainant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 18.11.2019 in all the matters wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that Page 8 of 12 the inspection of the documents were offered to the Applicant but he had never visited their office for the requisite record as desired by him.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority Page 9 of 12 nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
In the context of disclosure of information relating to a public activity, the Commission referred to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ferani Hotels Private Limited vs. the State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 9064- 9065 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32073-32074/ 2015) dated 27.09.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court has directed to disclose the building plans, sanctioned plans, and details of commercial establishments in the public domain. The relevant observations made in the decision are mentioned hereunder:
"15.............In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, there is no mandate on an applicant to give any reason for requesting the information, i.e., anybody should be able to obtain the information as long as it is part of the public record of a public authority. Thus, even private documents submitted to public authorities may, under certain situations, form part of public record. In this behalf, we may usefully refer to Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defining 'public documents' as under:
74. Public documents - The following documents are public documents:-
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts--
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;"
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
16. The only exemption from disclosure of information, of whatever nature, with the public authority is as per Sections 8 & 9 of the said Act. Thus, unless the information sought for falls under these provisions, it would be mandatory for the public authorities to disclose the information to an applicant."
23. The fate of purchase of land development and investments is a matter of public knowledge and debate. Any judicial pronouncement must squarely weigh in favour of the fullest disclosure, in this behalf........
24. In the aforesaid circumstances, even by a test of public interest, it can hardly be said that the same would not apply in matters of full disclosure of information of development plans to all and everyone.....
26. Similarly, clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act ex facie would have no relevance. There is no 'personal information' of which disclosure is sought. Further it cannot be said that it has no relation to public activity or interest, or that it is unwarranted, or there is an invasion of privacy. These are documents filed before public authorities, required to be put in public domain, by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act and the RERA, and involves a public element of making builders accountable to one and all......
Page 10 of 1234. In the end, we would like to say that keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan. The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA require the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority. In our view, keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA"
While relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the Commission in several decisions such as CIC/DOURD/A/2017/148703-BJ dated 06.03.2019 directed the Dy. L&DO, M/o Urban Development to disclose details of lease allotments, terms & conditions of the lease, complete procedure relating to grant of lease, details of monitoring authority etc. of all leased properties as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. Similarly, in CIC/DDATY/A/2018/115957-BJ dated 17.09.2019 the Commission had allowed disclosure of Building Plan, Maps/details of land use/details of lands allotted, etc. and other relevant documents in respect of M2K Victoria Garden at Azadpur, New Delhi.
With regard to the public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein while explaining the term "Public Interest" it was held as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest':
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."Page 11 of 12
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directed the Respondents to ensure that the inspection sought by the Appellant / Complainant is implemented on 25th / 26th November, 2019 (11.00 AM) as agreed during the hearing. The first 50 pages of the enclosures / documents sought by the Appellant / Complainant be made available to him free of cost and for the remaining, the fee be charged in accordance with the RTI Rules, 2012.
The Appeals/ Complaints stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 25.11.2019 Page 12 of 12