Central Information Commission
Vikram Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 2 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/2019/113291
Vikram Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
... ितवादी/Respondent
CPIO, Delhi Development
Authority, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.11.2018 FA : 17.01.2019 SA : 25.03.2019
CPIO : 24-03-2019, 04-
FAO : Not on record Hearing: 19-11-2020
06-2019 & 09-11-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi seeking following information:-
"1) Please provide information pertaining to the Status of the Handover of Flat via DDA File No L/353 (7393) 2015/DDA14/RO for payment made by Vikram Singh under DDA Housing Scheme 2014.
2) Please provide Reasons as per Record for Delay in Handing over the Flat to Vikram Singh.
3) Please provide information pertaining to the Total Amount Paid by Vikram Singh for the Flat under the Scheme vide File No L/353 (7393) 2015/DDA14/RO.
4) Please provide a Tentative Date as to when the Flat will be Handed Over to the Vikram Singh."
2. The CPIO responded on 24-03-2019, 04-06-2019 & 09-11-2020. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 17.01.2019 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the Page 1 of 4 RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Vikram Singh attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Vikee, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to clarify about the reasons for delay in handing over the flat.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking clarification regarding the reasons for delay in handing over the flat and therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to clarify on this matter. Nonetheless, they had asked the appellant vide their letter dated 04-06-2019 to visit their office for redressal of his grievance on 20-06-2019 and also given him an opportunity to inspect the complete file. They informed that the flat has been handed over to the appellant on 17-06-2019. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the situational queries raised by the appellant regarding the reasons for delay in handing over the flat cannot be answered by the CPIO as per the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, the CPIO had provided an opportunity to the appellant to peruse the complete file and the flat was also allotted to the appellant. However, there is delay in responding to the RTI application and therefore, the CPIO is hereby issued a warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. This Commission further observes that the queries seeking clarification from the CPIO regarding 'reasons for delay in handing over the flat and tentative date of handing over' are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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."Page 2 of 4
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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in Page 3 of 4 the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. In light of the factual matrix of the instant appeal and the aforesaid case- laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide any clarification or advice to the appellant. Nonetheless, the respondent has judiciously disposed of the RTI application by providing an opportunity to the appellant to peruse the complete file. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:19-11-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
DDA, Dy. Director & Nodal CPIO
RTI Imp. & Co-Ordination Branch
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023
2. Shri Vikram Singh
Page 4 of 4