Central Information Commission
Dharmvir vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 March, 2020
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.:- CIC/DDATY/A/2018/147431-BJ
Mr. Dharamvir
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
PIO, Circle - 17, DDA
Office of the Executive Engineer
Lakkad Mandi, Kirti Nagar
New Delhi - 110055
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.03.2020
Date of Decision : 04.03.2020
Date of RTI application 12.06.2018
CPIO's response 27.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 05.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 12.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.07.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points in respect of work of Development of land in Dwarka Construction of Boundary wall drain no. 2, Sector 23 Dwarka of 23B, 24, 25, 26 Dwarka Zone, the copies of all pages of Cement Register/copy of Cement Bills/Copy of Drawing, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.06.2018 stated that the matter is sub-judice with the Hon'ble Court and that the information would only be provided after receiving directions from the Court. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.07.2018 while upholding the CPIO's response, stated that the Appellant could request the Hon'ble Court for the requisite documents.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 5
Appellant: Mr. Dharamvir along with Mr. G. L. Verma;
Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not provided to him, till date. Moreover, the exemption claimed by the Respondent that the matter is sub-judice could not be the ground for denial of information. The Appellant further alleged corruption and malpractices within the Respondent Public Authority in respect of construction of boundary wall and that to unearth such wrongdoings he desired to have the requisite information. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that mere sub-judice could not be the ground for denial as the Respondent had to justify how the disclosure of information would impede the court case. Moreover, to the best of his knowledge, the court case referred to by the Respondent had no correlation with the information sought by him.
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Complainant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed Page 2 of 5 ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
Moreover, it was observed that as per the provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, no specific exemption is codified which allowed non-disclosure of information on the ground that the matter on which information is sought is sub-judice. In this context, the following extract of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited:
"5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
The Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:
Page 3 of 5"At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."
Furthermore, the Commission in CIC/SM/A/2011/000343/SG/13645 can be cited wherein it was held as under:
"The stay order(s) of the High Court of Delhi do not appear to have framed a specific issue for determination and have granted a stay specifically only on the operation of the order of the Commission dated 24/08/2009. No claim for the exemption has been made by the PIO as per the RTI Act. However, the Commission assumes that the PIO is claiming that disclosure of information is exempt since the matter is sub- judice. The only exemption which may relate to matters in court is Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure "information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court". From a plain reading of Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, it is clear that it does not include sub- judice matters. As mentioned above, information may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure. Hence, disclosing information on matters which are sub- judice cannot constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. The mere claim that a matter is sub- judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the RTI Act. In view of the same, the Commission rules that the denial of information by the PIO on queries 36 and 38 of the RTI application is legally untenable. Moreover, in view of the observations laid down above, the decisions cited by the PIO are not relevant to the present matter."
The Commission in the matter of Shri Nanak Chand Arora v. State Bank of India in CIC/MA/A/2006/00018 dated 30.06.2006 had also held as under:
"10 The CPIO and the Chief Manager of the Bank has not responded to the information seeker in the spirit in which the Act seeks to promote transparency in functioning of the Bank. He has mis-interpreted the provision of the Act and informed that there was no provision for inspection of the record in the Act. This is contrary to the provision u/ s 2
(f). He has also not indicated as to why the report could not be disclosed, except that the matter was sub-judice. There is no provision in the Act which restricts the disclosure of information merely on the ground of the fact that matter is pending with the Consumer Court. In the instant case, the Court has not forbidden the disclosure of investigation report or inspection of record."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Page 4 of 5The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant or to substantiate their claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and in the light of above referred decisions of the Superior Court, the Commission directs the Chief Engineer, Dwarka, DDA to examine the RTI application of the Appellant in accordance with Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 and furnish complete information as sought in the RTI application, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission failing which penal action could be initiated under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities The Appeal stands 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: 04.03.2020 Copy to:-
1. The Pr. Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, B-Block, 4th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
2. Chief Engineer, Dwarka Zone, DDA Office, Manglapuri, New Delhi
3. Superintending Engineer and FAA, Circle - 17, DDA, Lakkad Mandi, Kirti Nagar New Delhi - 110055 Page 5 of 5