Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 7 October, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ADDDM/C/2021/112071-UM
Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra
.... शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Dist. Magistrate (North West),
Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081
.... प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2022
Date of Decision : 07.10.2022
Date of RTI application 18.12.2020
CPIO's response 28.12.2020
Date of the First Appeal 31.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission 18.03.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 21 points, as under:-
etc. The CPIO, O/o Dist. Magistrate, vide letter dated 28.12.2020 furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sr. Assistant, Present in Person The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that the present RTI Application is related to the information of AC Block Resident Welfare Association (Regd)' at Shalimar Bagh , Delhi- 110088. He said that the said RWA is for DDA allotted flats in AC block, Shalimar Bagh , Delhi-110088, having approx. 900 multi-storey flats and around 5000 citizens are living in this block.' He alleged that this association is being run like a private company by a set of society members against public interest though the association takes grants and subsidy from various govt. offices under GNCTD viz Delhi park and Garden Society under Dept of Environment and also under Bhagidari Scheme and under various schemes run by Govt of NCT of Delhi where public money is been given to the RWAs. He claimed that Govt allocate funds to registered RWA and that registration of any RWA comes within certain obligations and certain responsibilities attached along with this registration.
He said the registration given to the RWA should be stopped and the various grants given to it should be immediately discontinued since it has been blatantly flouting the rules and there have been no elections in it for the past 5 years He further averred that the information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain by the public authority, but it didn't do so and therefore it has violated Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
He further deposed that inspite of his email and reminders he was not given any date and time of inspection of the related records and when he eventually in October , 2021 after prior intimation email there was no CPIO or officer present there and he had to return empty handed despite travelling in public transport bus for two hours since the place is very far from his house. He requested severest punishment to the respondent since he had virtually torn the spirit and the provisions of the RTI law to shreds.
The Respondent in reply said this happened during covid pandemic period and that the entire respondent authority was busy in covid management. He said they are still willing to furnish the information. The appellant took strong objection to the absence of the CPIO and instead junior officers representing him in hearing and alleged that the original respondent in the case was treating the RTI Law in a cavalier manner which was in complete violation of the spirit of the law. He said the RTI Act says in absence of the original respondent an officer equivalent to his level in hierarchy should represent him in the hearing. Plus, he said the Respondent authority generally doesn't allow the appellant or complainant to be represented by some one else and therefore it should apply the same principle to itself.
When queried by the Commission about the absence of the CPIO he mentioned medical grounds.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be made and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Taking into consideration, the submission made by the parties and on perusal of the records, the Commission observes that despite of repeated requests of the Complainant the date and time of inspection was not conveyed to him and when he went to the office of the respondent authority after giving prior intimation the respondent or any other officer was not present to offer him the inspection and further no information was given to him.
Further the Commission notes that instead of himself coming for the hearing the CPIO is authorizing a junior officer to represent him in the hearing before the Commission, which is a procedural lapse. Therefore, the Commission instructs the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken against him for this misconduct and negligence in providing the information which constitutes serious violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and why a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- should not be imposed on him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत एवं सत्याशित प्रशत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] शदनाक ं / Date: 07.10.2022