Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 30 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint Nos.
CIC/EDMCS/C/2018/621807, CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/612500
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/613794, CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/614677,
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/616508, CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/616512,
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/618447, CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/619094,
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/620804, CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/620805
Shri Varun Krishna ... निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Supdt. -RTI Cell (HQ), EDMC,
Patparganj Ind. Area, Patparganj,Delhi
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner (HQ), EDMC,
Patparganj Ind. Area, Patparganj, Delhi
PIO/Administrative Officer (HQ), EDMC,
Patparganj Ind. Area, Patparganj, Delhi
PIO/Administrative Officer, EDMC,
Shahdara South Zone, Shahdara, Delhi
PIO/Asst. Commissioner, EDMC, Shahdara
South Zone, Karkardooma Court, Delhi
PIO/Administrative Officer , EDMC, Shahdara
South Zone, Karkardooma Court, Shahdara, Delhi
Through: Sh. Love Kumar - PIO/AO ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2019
Date of Decision : 30.12.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
621807 19.04.2018 Nil Nil Nil
612500 08.01.2018 Nil Nil Nil
613794 25.11.2017 Nil 08.01.2018 Nil
Page 1 of 12
614677 08.02.2018 Nil Nil Nil
616508 20.02.2018 Nil Nil Nil
616512 09.02.2018 Nil Nil Nil
618447 21.03.2018 Nil Nil Nil
619094 27.03.2018 Nil Nil Nil
620804 27.02.2018 Nil Nil Nil
620805 02.04.2018 Nil Nil Nil
CIC/EDMCS/C/2018/621807
Information soughtand background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI application dated 21.04.2018 seeking information regarding Grievance No. PMOPG/E/2018/0058749 dated 07.02.2018. He sought to know the information on 7 points, inter alia:
1. Date and Inward number of the grievance received from PMO. 2. Note sheet indicating notings by various officials, Investigation report, and Action Taken Report (ATR) on investigation report or feedback obtained with respect to the issues raised in subject grievance. 3. In case no action is taken on my subject grievance, please inform me the name of officer(s) and staff responsible, but failed to take action. 4. Details of action taken by the controlling authority upon erring officials in case no action being taken then name, designation, and official mobile number be made known to me. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaint before the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
Respondent has submitted a written note during the hearing informing the Bench that the matter enquired about by the complainant deals with garbage burning and pertains to the Sanitation department. The RTI application was filed before the PM's Office and was never received by the answering Respondent, even by transfer. The answering Respondent appeared only on receipt of CIC hearing notice.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveal that the applicant filed a grievance before the PMO on 07.02.2018 dealing with the subject matter of disposal of garbage and followed it up by filing the RTI application before the PIO, EDMC about receipt of the said grievance from the PMO. Thus it is evident that the applicant was aware that the subject matter of garbage disposal by burning is dealt with the Municipal Corporation and not the Prime Minister's office where he had filed the complaint. The Complainant has neither appeared for the hearing nor Page 2 of 12 substantiated filing of the RTI application before the PMO. In this regard, the Commission wishes to place reliance on a decision dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission in the matter of "R S Gupta versus LG Office" expressly holding that:
"The offices of President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Governors, Lt. Governors andChief Ministers are not legally obliged under RTI Act to entertain RTI applications seeking information unrelated to it, or not held or controlled by these high offices.."
Since the grievance was filed by the applicant before an incorrect public authority, with knowledge of the incorrectness, and the Complainant has neither appeared nor provided adequate reason for such convoluted process of obtaining information, the Commission is not inclined to pass any directions in the case at hand.
CIC/EDMCS/C/2018/612500 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI application dated 08.01.2018 seeking information regarding letter from Hon'ble MP Shri Maheish Girri dated 22.08.2017 received by Chairperson, Standing Committee office. He sought information on the following 4 points:
1. Inward number and Date of receiving subject letter by the Chairperson‟s Standing Committee office along with copy of file noting.
2. All the official contact details of Chairperson i.e. Email address, Telephone number, Residence number and official mobile number.
3. Action Taken Report (ATR) by the Chairperson‟s office.
4. Name, Designation, Email address, and official mobile number of the controlling authority of Chairperson to whom complaint can be filed for taking no action upon the letter of Hon‟ble MP Shri Maheish Girri.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed the instant complaint before the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed. Respondent has produced a letter dated 03.04.2018 revealing that the then PIO/AO, Shahdara South Zone had replied to the complainant clarifying that the requisite information does not pertain to their office and a copy of the letter was marked to PIO/CL&EC/HQ/EDMC.Page 3 of 12
Decision:
Perusal of the facts and records of the case reveal that the RTI application was filed before PIO, EDMC, who had responded denying holding the information and marking a copy of the application to the actual custodian of information viz. PIO/CL&EC/HQ/EDMC. Hearing notice was issued to the PIO/HQ, EDMC. However, neither the concerned officer is present for hearing nor any submission has been received from the actual custodian of information. Registry of this Bench is directed to issue Notice to the PIO/HQ, EDMC to explain why punitive action shall not be initiated against him for non supply of information in response to the RTI application, violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and unexplained absence during the hearing, vitiating the proceedings. The Notice shall be served through the PIO/AO, EDMC- Sh. Love Kumar and he must ensure that response/explanation from PIO/HQ, EDMC must reach the Commission by 25.01.2020, failing which appropriate penal action shall be initiated as per law on the officer responsible for non compliance of these directions.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/613794 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 25.11.2017 seeking information regarding letter from MP Shri Maheish Girri dated 22.08.2017. He sought information on the following 4 points:
1. Inward number and date of receiving subject letter by concerned official.
2. Name, Designation, email address, official telephone, official resident number and official mobile number of officials with whom the letter was lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her.
3. Action Taken Report (ATR) by the designated officer.
4. Name, Designation, email address, and official mobile number of the controlling authority of the designated official.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed First Appeal dated 08.01.2018 which was not adjudicated; therefore Complainant filed a complaint before the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
Respondent has submitted records indicating that a reply had been sent to the applicant in response to the instant RTI query. The respondent submitted a written note dated 12.12.2019 explaining that the RTI application dated 25.11.2017 was diarized/registered on 26.12.2017 and response was provided on 04.01.2018, copy whereof has been placed on record. It has further been Page 4 of 12 contended by the respondent that the First Appeal was also duly adjudicated upon granting opportunity to the applicant to attend. The applicant failed to attend the hearing of First Appeal and sought telephonic hearing, which could not be acceded to, so the First Appeal was disposed off vide order dated 22.01.2018. None of these facts have been brought out in the Complaint filed by the complainant.
Decision:
It is noted that information as sought by the applicant had been duly furnished vide reply dated 04.01.2018. Complainant has neither appeared to buttress his case nor has he explained the ground for filing this complaint. The Commission is not inclined to pass any directions in this case.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/614677 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 08.02.2018 seeking information regarding Grievance No. GNCTD/E/2017/08134 dated 20.11.2017. He sought to know the information on 8 points, inter alia;
a) Date and Inward number of the letter received.
b) Note sheet indicating notings by various officials and final decision of competent authority on my subject Grievance.
c) Note sheet indicating notings by various officials and decision of competent authority on investigation report or feedback obtained with respect to the issues raised in subject grievance.
d) Final investigation report and Action Taken Report with respect to the subject grievance.
e) In case no action is taken on my subject grievance, please inform me the name of officer(s) and staff responsible, but failed to take action. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
Submissions dated 02.11.2019 placed forth by the respondent indicate that RTI application dated 08.02.2018 was replied vide letter dated 07.06.2018, denying holding any information. Respondent present during hearing explained that the application itself was not received at the respondent's office and hence no information could be provided.
Page 5 of 12Decision:
In the light of the submissions of the PIO/AO, EDMC, the Commission directs the PIO to furnish a revised reply clarifying the reply dated 07.06.2018 confirming that the grievance application about which information was sought by the applicant was not received at the respondent's office and hence no information could be provided in this regard. The revised reply shall be furnished by the respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order, with a compliance report marked to the Commission, reachable by 31.01.2020.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/616508 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 20.02.2018 seeking information regarding Grievance No. PMOPG/E/2017/0629216 dated 14.12.2017. He sought to know the information on following 5 points:
1. Inward number and Date of receiving subject grievance.
2. Names, designations, email address, official telephone, official residence number and official mobile number of officials with whom the letter was lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her.
3. Grounds available in records based upon which an interim reply has not been submitted as per DARPG guidelines.
4. Action Taken Report (ATR) by the designated official.
5. Name, Designation, official Email address, and official mobile number of the controlling authority of the designated official.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
Respondent has submitted documents and submissions revealing that the matter was replied vide letter dated 14.03.2018 upon transferring the application to Information Technology Dept, EDMC. The respondent has further stated in his submissions dated 12.12.2019 submitted during hearing that the First Appeal was duly heard telephonically, at the request of the applicant.
Decision:
It is noted that information as sought by the applicant had been duly furnished vide reply dated 14.03.2018 and even the First Appeal was duly heard. Complainant has neither appeared to buttress his case nor has he explained Page 6 of 12 the ground for filing this complaint and the above facts submitted by the respondent have not been disclosed in the Complaint. Under the circumstances, the Commission is not inclined to pass any directions in this case.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/616512 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI application dated 09.02.2018 seeking information regarding Grievance No. PMOPG/E/2017/0625775 dated 11.12.2017. He sought to know the information 8 points;
1. Inward number and Date of receiving subject Grievance. 2.
Names, designations, email address, and official telephone and mobile number of officials with whom the letter was lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her. 3. Action Taken Report (ATR) by the designated official. 4. Details of action taken by the controlling authority upon officials for not disposing Grievance on time. 5. Details of action taken by the controlling authority upon officials for not publishing details of PIO and FAA on Website as suo motu disclosure. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
Respondent has submitted documents and submissions revealing that the matter was replied vide letter dated 14.03.2018 upon transferring the application to Information Technology Dept, EDMC. The respondent has further stated in his submissions dated 12.12.2019 submitted during hearing that the First Appeal was duly heard telephonically, at the request of the applicant.
Decision:
It is noted that information as sought by the applicant had been duly furnished vide reply dated 14.03.2018 and even the First Appeal was duly heard. Complainant has neither appeared to buttress his case nor has he explained the ground for filing this complaint and the above facts submitted by the respondent have not been disclosed in the Complaint. Under the circumstances, the Commission is not inclined to pass any directions in this case.Page 7 of 12
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/618447 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 21.03.2018 seeking information regarding Grievance No. PMOPG/E/2018/0090802. He sought to know the information 8 points, inter alia:
1.Inward number and Date of receiving subject letter by concerned official.
2. Names, designations, email address, official telephone, official residence number and official mobile number of officials with whom the letter was lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her.
3. Action Taken Report (ATR) by the designated official.
4. Details of action taken by controlling authority if no action has been taken by the designated official. If no action taken by the controlling authority then reasons on records u/s 4.1.d be made known to me. Etc. Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
Respondent has stated during the hearing informing the Bench that the matter enquired about the complainant deals with cleaning of footpath and pertains to Sanitation department. He further informed that the RTI application was filed before the PM's Office and was never received by the answering Respondent, even by transfer. The answering Respondent appeared only on receipt of CIC hearing notice.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveal that the applicant filed a grievance before the PMO on 26.02.2018 dealing with subject matter of cleaning of footpath and followed it up by filing the RTI application before the PIO, EDMC about receipt of the said grievance from the PMO. Thus it is evident that the applicant was aware that the subject matter of garbage disposal by burning is dealt with the Municipal Corporation and not the Prime Minister's office where he had filed the complaint. The Complainant has neither appeared for the hearing nor substantiated filing of the RTI application before the PMO. In this regard, the Commission wishes to place reliance on a decision dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission in the matter of "R S Gupta versus LG Office" expressly holding that:Page 8 of 12
"The offices of President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Governors, Lt. Governors andChief Ministers are not legally obliged under RTI Act to entertain RTI applicationsseeking information unrelated to it, or not held or controlled by these high offices.."
Since the grievance was filed by the applicant before an incorrect public authority, with knowledge of the incorrectness, and the Complainant has neither appeared nor provided adequate reason for such convoluted process of obtaining information, the Commission is not inclined to pass any directions in the case at hand.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/619094 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 27.03.2018 seeking information regarding Grievance No. DARPG/E/2018/00644 dated 16.01.2018. He sought to know the information on 4 points;
1. Daily progress report from date of receiving till current date clearly mentioning (date wise) Name and Designation of the official handling the grievance along with details of action taken by him/her.
2. In case no action is taken by the concerned official then please inform me the name, designation of the official accountable.
3. Name, Designation, Email address, and official mobile number of the official of the controlling authority of the erring official mentioned at S. No 3 and details of action taken by the controlling authority upon the erring official.
4. In case no action taken by the controlling authority upon erring official then reasons on records be made known to me. [Ref Section 4.1.d] along with expected date by which grievance will be disposed. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed.
The RTI application is based on a complaint filed by the applicant alleging that a particular fruit vendor has been illegally encroaching upon a certain portion of footpath in Vasundhara Enclave. The PIO present during hearing submitted that the RTI Application had not been received in their office. It has further been reported by the respondent that on receipt of the copy of complaint alongwith the hearing notice, an inspection of the concerned site was carried out by the Licensing Inspector of the area and no such vendor was found in the area concerned.
Page 9 of 12Decision:
In the light of the facts which have emerged during the course of hearing, the Commission notes that necessary action of site inspection has already been carried out by respondent and report in this regard has also been submitted. No further action is deemed in this case.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/620804 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 27.02.2018 seeking information regarding Email forwarded to Dy. Commissioner, Shah. South Zone for necessary action vide diary no. 3373 dated 27.02.2018 from Mayor-EDMC's office. He sought to know the information on 7 points, inter alia;
1.Inward number and Date of receiving the subject letter by the concerned officials responsible for providing ATR.
2. Copy of Action Taken Report (ATR) by the concerned official.
3. Certified copy of your rules or citizens charter or any other document stipulating the time frame in number of days by which such issues should have been dealt with and resolved by your public authority.
4. In case no action is taken on the communication, please inform me the name of officer(s) and staff responsible.
5. Name, Designation, Email address, and official mobile number of the official of the controlling authority of the erring official mentioned at S.No. 4 and details of action taken by the controlling authority upon the erring official. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed. Respondent claims that the complaint mentioned by the applicant pertains to removal of illegal dhabas operating on the footpath, which falls within the jurisdiction of PIO, Health, GNCTD hence the RTI application was never received in the office of PIO, EDMC.
Decision:
In the light of the foregoing facts which have emerged during the course of hearing, the Commission finds it expedient that the PIO, Health is heard on this issue. Accordingly, Registry of this Bench is directed to send a copy of this order to Dr. Ajay Kumar, DHO, Shahdara South Zone, as informed by the PIO/AO, Shahdara South, to be served through the PIO/AO-Sh. Love Kumar, Page 10 of 12 alongwith relevant details of the case. Dr. Ajay Kumar, DHO, Shahdara South Zone shall submit a report, about action taken on the complaint of the applicant about removal of illegal dhabas, which should reach the Commission by 31.01.2020. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.
CIC/EMCDS/C/2018/620805 Information sought and background of the case:
Complainant filed RTI applications dated 02.04.2018 seeking information regarding RTI dated 27.02.2018 dispatched on 01.03.2018 by speed post. He sought to know the information on 3 points;
1. Inward number and Date of receiving my RTI dated 27.02.2018.
2. If RTI is not received then provide copies pages from inward register from 02.03.2018 to 05.03.2018.
3. Name and designation of the PIO who had received my RTI dated 27.02.2018 along with daily progress report upon my RTI dated 27.02.2018.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed direct complaints in the above mentioned cases in the Commission.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Respondent alone is present while the complainant has vide email dated 16.12.2019 sent a request for adjournment. Since the request has been received at the last moment and the respondents have appeared, hence the hearing could not be postponed. Respondent explains there are two AOs at EDMC, Shahdara, while the answering Respondent belongs to General branch, the instant RTI application possibly had been received by the other AO and thus did not come to the knowledge of the answering respondent.
Decision:
In the light of the foregoing facts of the case, the Commission hereby directs PIO/AO, EDMC- Sh. Love Kumar to submit a reasonable explanation about the non-availability/non receipt of the RTI application. The explanation must reach the Commission by 25.01.2020.
Before parting with the cases at hand, the Commission wishes to note that this Commission while deciding a batch of six matters of the same applicant [CIC/EDMCS/C/2017/169210 and 5 others] vide order dated 15.11.2018 had observed as follows, while dropping the penalty proceedings against the respondent:
"......3. The notice submits that the complainant has made as many as 21 RTI applications on the same issue. It is further states that temporary encroachment by hawkers on street is a continuing phenomena and the Page 11 of 12 civil body cannot evolve any mechanism to curb the menace without public participation. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the noticee rules out any malafide on his part and cited inability to furnish information reputedly on the identical nature of repetitive queries of the complainant thereby causing wastage of his time and wastage of resources.
4. The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read „malafide‟ on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
The above ten cases are thus decided on the aforementioned lines.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानितप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 12 of 12