Central Information Commission
Aseem Takyar vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 26 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/DMRCP/A/2017/165894
File No. CIC/OOCMD/A/2018/108049
File No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166106
Date of Hearing : 22.03.2018
Date of Decision : 22.03.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Aseem Takyar
Respondent : PIO/Executive Director-(Oprns.)-
PIO-2, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Ltd., Metro Bhawan
Through: Sh. Rishi Raj-Dy. GM
2. PIO/Dy. Secretary-(RTI) & PIO,
Chief Minister's Office (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi)
Through: Sh. Vikas Narain-APIO;
Sh. Subhash Agarwal-Consultant
3. PIO/ Under Secretary & CPIO,
Ministry of Home Affairs
Through: Mr. R K Pandey
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
165894 25.04.2017 16.05.2017 20.06.2017 10.07.2017
108049 01.09.2017 06.09.2017 23.10.2017 02.11.2017
166106 16.05.2017 20.06.2017 10.07.2017 31.07.2017
170042 31.07.2017 - - 02.09.2017 - -
Since the parties in all of the above cases are common, the matters are
clubbed for the purpose of effective adjudication
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/DMRCP/A/2017/165894 Vide RTI application dated 25.04.2017, addressed to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the appellant sought information as under:-
"Provide information, containing complete details of the area, portion leased to each entity at Shivaji Stadium, Metro Station at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi, along with terms and conditions."
Shri Vikas Kumar, Executive Director/Operations & PIO-2 vide letter dated 16.05.2017 stated that this is to communicate that information has already been provided to appellant in a similar RTI query vide DMRC letter no. 2016/DMRC/Operations/RTI/8224/1 dated 24.04.2017, wherein it was communicated to the appellant that none of the properties/areas at metro stations have been given on lease basis by Property Business wing of DMRC.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.06.2017. Shri Sharat Sharma, Appellate Authority-2 disposed off the appeal vide order dated 10.07.2017 holding as under:-
"As the factual position, the reply was already sent to the applicant on 18.05.2017. Copy of reply of PIO-2 is enclosed herewith."
Feeling aggrieved with the response received from the FAA, appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and the appellant reiterates his queries. Respondent states that DMRC is divided into two units, and vide PIO reply dated 16.05.2017, the appellant was duly informed that the Property Business Wing of DMRC does not lease any of the properties/areas at metro stations.
Furthermore, the FAA while disposing of the matter enclosed copy of reply dated 20.04.2017 from the PIO-2 furnishing the list of properties leased at the metro stations as Property Development spaces to Licensees.
Decision After hearing the averments of the parties and perusal of records, the Commission notes that the list of properties leased as property development spaces, including name of the metro station and built up space have been made available to the appellant. In view of the deliberations during the hearing, the Commission directs the Respondent to further furnish the list of properties leased/licensed at the metro stations and revenue earned from it, to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order.
CIC/OOCMD/A/2018/108049 Vide RTI application dated 01.09.2017, addressed to the Dy. Secretary-(RTI) & PIO, Chief Minister's Office (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the appellant sought information 'Regarding Status of Proposals, Approved and Pending proposals. He sought information on three points.
Shri Bhupendra Kumar, Dy. Secy. (RTI)/PIO vide letter dated 06.09.2017 stated that information sought is not specific, wide in range and voluminous in nature and hence no response is feasible.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.10.2017. Spl. Secy. to C.M./FAA disposed off the appeal vide order dated 30.10.2017 upholding the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved with the response received from the FAA, appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and reiterate their respective contentions. The appellant states that as a citizen he sought the information in larger public interest in keeping with the spirit and purport of the RTI Act.
Respondent states that the query of the appellant is not focussed or specific and hence could not be responded by their office. The Respondent further informed that proposals do not attain finality nor are they concluded in the office of the Chief Minister, but they are transferred to the respective department. Hence the data as sought by the appellant is in any case not available with the Respondent.
Decision After hearing the parties and in view of the deliberations between parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that oral contentions of the respondent do not sufficiently address the query raised by the Appellant. Hence, the Respondent-PIO is hereby directed to submit an affidavit clarifying their stance in response to the RTI Application. The oral averments put forth by the Respondent during the hearing with respect to the information not being held at their office may also be included in the affidavit. The affidavit shall be submitted before the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order, with an advance copy marked to the appellant.
CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166106 Vide RTI application dated 16.05.2017, addressed to the Under Secretary & CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, the appellant sought information 'Regarding Status of Proposals, Approved and Pending proposals. He sought information on three points.
Shri R.K. Pandey, Under Secretary & CPIO vide letter dated 20.06.2017 denied access to the information stating that they do not hold the information as sought the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.07.2017. Shri P.K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary & FAA disposed of the appeal vide order dated 31.07.2017 upholding the reply of PIO and citing the celebrated case of Aditya Bandopadhyay, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the DOPT OM dated 16.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved with the response received from the FAA, appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and reiterate their respective contentions. The appellant states that his query about the information is in larger public interest in consonance with the spirit and purport of the RTI Act.
Respondent states that the information sought by the appellant is neither held nor under the control of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent reiterated the DOPT OM dated 16.09.2011 clarifying that since the information as sought does not exist in the form as sought, the same cannot be furnished.
Decision After hearing the parties and in view of the deliberations between parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that oral contentions of the respondent do not sufficiently address the query raised by the Appellant. Hence, the Respondent-PIO is hereby directed to submit an affidavit clarifying their stance in response to the RTI Application. The oral averments put forth by the Respondent during the hearing with respect to the information not being held at their office shall also be included in the affidavit. The affidavit shall be submitted before the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order, with an advance copy marked to the appellant.
Before parting with the case at hand, the Commission finds it pertinent to draw the attention of the Respondent PIOs and the competent superior officials from the office of the Chief Minister and the Ministry of Home Affairs to the queries raised by the appellant. Even if the form in which the queries have been asked can be considered somewhat ambiguous and not focussed, yet undeniably the queries are genuine and in national interest. With digitisation of all public offices, even at the rural levels, pivotal offices like that of the Chief Minister's office at Delhi and the MHA should take measures to improve their knowledge bank about overall functioning and operations. It is time that public offices are equipped with basic information with respect to data about pending and approved proposals relating to their respective offices.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer