Central Information Commission
Shri Mahabir Singh vs Deputy Commissioner, West Zone, ... on 14 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00709 dated 15-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Mahabir Singh.
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner, West Zone
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
FACTS
By an application of 23-11-06, assigned I.D. No. 538, Shri Mahabir Singh of Nangal Raya, New Delhi applied to the PIO, DC (West Zone) MCD seeking the following information:
i) "Please supply the Compact Disk the Names, Designation, office address, Residential address, Mobile/ Telephone numbers (Office and Residence) provided by MCD of all the employees serving in MCD.
ii) Please supply the certified/ attested copy of the Resolution No. 18 approved by DDA on 2.4.1979 for the Town Planner, MCD.
iii) Please state the planning/ purpose of the above mentioned Resolution No. 18 and give the reason for not applying this Resolution. Which Officer of MCD is responsible for this? Please inform the name and designation of this officer.
iv) Please inform the width of Jail Road from Rewari Railway line to Tilak Nagar.
v) Please clarify the from and to date, in reference to the license fee of Rs. 12/- paid for 1962-63 as per receipt No. 910072 dated 20.2.63 in the name of Bhagwan Das Kanhiya Lal, WZ-1664-A, Subhash Bazar, Nangal Raya, Delhi.
vi) Please clarify if I am entitled of the benefits of Section 14 of DD Act 1957 and the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 24.3.2006 in case No. 4677/1985 in view of the receipt No. 910072 dated 20.2.63 for the year 1962-63 for trading license issued by the Health Department, West Zone, MCD and receipt of registration fee of Sale Tax Department dated 8.8.1962 submitted along with affidavit in the office of EE(B), West Zone, MCD on 17.8.06 (the both are in the name of my Grand Father Shri Bhagwan Das Kanhiya Lal).1
vii) Please state that which department/ office of MCD is having the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.2.2006 & 24.3.2006 passed in cased number 4677/1985.
viii) Please supplied the entire proceeding on my letter submitted on 23.10.06 in the office of DC (West), MCD. If any action is not initiated in this regard, please state the name and designation of the responsible officer and what action was initiated against him?
ix) Please clarify that if the record of commercial property tax prior to 1.9.1962 is not available/ traceable in the office of MCD, the present owner of the same premises where commercial activities are running prior to 1.9.62, is entitled the benefits of Section 14 of DD Act 1957.
x) I have submitted my first affidavit on 5.4.2006 in the office of DC (West), MCD, second affidavit on 22.5.06 and third affidavit on 17.8.06 in the office of EE (B), West Zone, MCD. Now I may please be informed that which affidavit is applicable on me with the reason and clarification. Also please state the relevant Act, Rules, Regulation, Order, Direction and instructions in this regard."
To this he received a response on 8-1-07 point wise from DC (West Zone) as follows:
1) "No specific information has been asked for and it does not serve the purpose of public interest, so the information is restricted and cannot be supplied.
2&3) It pertain to Town Planning Deptt. the copies of the same have been sent to the Chief Town Planner for reply which will be transmitted after receiving reply from there.
4). The road pertains to ward no. 189NR) from Lajwanti Chowk to Rewari Lane is of 100 ROW.
5) As the record of 1962-63 is not traceable, the date cannot be clarified.
6) Monitoring Committee has already rejected the case.
7) The Law Deptt. of MCD.
8) Copy of the proceedings on the letter dated 23.10.06 is
attached.
2
9) The applicant has not wanted the information is respect
of any specific property and has talked in general of the situations presumed by him, as such, nothing specific can be commented. Moreover, Section 14 of DD Act, 1957 has no relevance with the property tax deptt. and accordingly not governed by that Act.
10) As per the opinion of the Law Deptt., the applicant is bound by his first affidavit as deposited on 5.4.06."
However, in the meantime Shri Mahabir Singh had moved his first appeal before Shri K.D. Akolia, Addl. Commissioenr, MCD pleading that his application had not been responded to. In his order of 23-1-07 Shri Akolia, 1st Appellate Authority held as follows:
"It is seen that the reply has been sent to the applicant late by as many as 16 days whereas it should have been sent within 30 days i.e. by 23.12.2006, which forced the applicant to file the present appeal. It is hoped that the applicant must have received the said reply during the intervening period. However, a copy of the reply of the PIO is also sent herewith to Shri Mahabir Singh. In case he needs any clarification, he may write to the PIO or the undersigned.
The PIO/DC (West Zone) must ensure in future that the prescribed time limit in providing the reply/ information is adhered to scrupulously. He may also ensure that the reply in respect of point No. 2 & 3 is sent to the applicant by 6.2.2007 positively."
Appellant's prayer in his second appeal before us is as follows:
"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the CPIO may kindly be ordered to answer every question/ information sought/ demanded by the appellant as per application/appeal and punished for late reply as per the Right to Information Act in the interest of justice."
In this appeal his grievance is specifically with regard to information obtained in response to question Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10. In his response to our appeal notice of 9-7-2008, DC (West Zone) has responded to questions raised as follows:
1) In question No. 1, the appellant has asked to supply the names, designation, office addresses, residential addresses, mobile/ telephone numbers (office and residence) of all the employees working in MCD. This is only available in the directory of MCD 3 which is available with the Press & Information Office. Town Hall and that can be had from applying there.
2) In question No. 3, the same was forwarded to the CTP and correspondence is being done by the CTP with DDA and copy to the appellant has already been sent in this regard by the Town Planning Deptt.
3) In question no. 4, as per report of Ex. En. (M)-1/WZ the width of Jail Road from Tilak Nagar to Riwari Line, at present is approximate 100 feet. However, as per layout plan of Jail Road the proposed ROW is 150 feet.
4) In question no. 5, the record dated 1962-63 is not traceable so the date cannot be clarified.
5) In question no. 6 as per report of Bldg. Deptt. it is stated that the Monitoring Committee has already rejected the case.
6) In question no. 10, as per opinion of Law Deptt the applicant is bound by his first affidavit as deposited on 5.4.06."
The appeal was heard on 14-7-2008. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Mahabir Singh.
Respondent Brig Rajinder Singh, DC (West).
DECISION NOTICE The issues before us are two:
a) Reasons why response due on 23-12-2006 was actually sent on 8- 1-2007;
b) Adequacy of information provided.
Issue a) Brig. Rajinder Singh, present DC (West) submitted that the reasons for delay in responding to the initial application are not known to him since he was not PIO at that time. The concerned PIO was Shri Deepak Hastir, at present Director (Personnel), MCD. In this case Shri Deepak Hastir the then D.C. (West Zone) will show cause as to why he should not be held liable for penalty of Rs. 4,250/- @ Rs. 250/- a day for 17 days (from 23-12-06 to 8-1-07). He may do this either in writing by 31st July, 08 or through personal appearance before us on 14-8-2008 at 10.30 a.m. 4 Issue b) Each of the questions asked and answers given were examined with the parties in the hearing. The information with regard to question (i) is expected to have been published by the MCD within 120 days from the enactment of RTI Act 2005 u/s 4 (1) (b) sub-section (ix) according to which every public authority was expected to publish "a directory of its officers and employees" preferably on the website. Seeking this information on Compact Disk (CD), which is a permissible form of access under the definition of 'right to information' u/s 2 (j) (iv) was therefore, fully within the competence of appellant Shri Mahabir Singh. This information in CD will now be supplied to appellant Shri Mahabir Singh within one week of the date of issue of this decision notice by PIO, Brig. Rajinder Singh, DC (West). However, because this information was not provided within the time frame specified it will now be provided free of charge u/s 7 (6) of the RTI Act.
On question No. (iii), DC (West Zone) has submitted that Chief Town Planner (CTP) is the officer in possession of the information sought. However, CTP in his response to Shri Mahabir Singh of 22-3-07 has already informed him as follows:
"The Dir (Plg) UC, DDA, vide his letter no. Dir (UC) DDA/ 2005/ RTI/ 1080/ 49/ D-32 dated 2.3.07, has agreed to provide reply to Q. (ii) by DDA.
Since Q. (iii) is in consequence to and based on reply to Q. (ii) about resolution no. 18 dated 2.4.1979 of DDA, its reply may be possible only after knowing the contents of resolution no. 1 8 of Dir (Plg) UC, DDA, is being requested to provide the copy of the above resolution, for necessary reply."
Appellant displayed a copy of an MCD document which indicated that these documents are not with the DDA but with the MCD. A copy of this document was given to the PIO, Brig. Rajinder Singh who will follow up with CTP to ensure an appropriate reply.
On question No.iv), the information sought by appellant was the width of Jail Road. This information has, in fact, been provided by DC (West) both in initial response of 8-1-07 and again in his response to the appeal notice. Appellant raised the question as to why it had not been expanded to 150 feet 5 which was the approved Plan. This amounts to a fresh question since the question in the application is clear and has been clearly answered. Similarly, the questions asked with regard to question Nos. 5, 6 and 10 already stand answered.
Appellant protested that the opinion of Law Department was wrong as the first affidavit has been superseded by his subsequent application of 22-5-
06. However, the affidavit made applicable to him by the MCD with the reasons and clarification for doing so as sought by him has, in fact, been provided. If this reason is invalid on legal grounds as appellant Shri Mahabir Singh protests then the remedy does not lie with the RTI Act.
The appeal is thus partly allowed as above, with no costs. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 14-7-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 14-7-2008 6