Central Information Commission
Mr.Shub Inder Singh vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 25 November, 2011
1
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001278
Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Shub Inder Singh, New Delhi
Public Authority : Land & Development Office, N.Delhi
(Sh. C.Daulagupnu, Dy.L&DO/CPIO)
Date of Hearing : 25 November 2011
Date of Decision : 25 November 2011
Facts:
1. Shri Shub Inder Singh submitted RTI application dated 13 December 2010 before the CPIO, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi seeking information relating to the Sequence of events leading to the Sub Division of the Leasehold Plot No. 2/11, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi measuring 800 yards.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 30 December 2010, CPIO furnished information that the property had never been sub divided by their office.
3. Not satisfied with the order, appellant preferred appeal dated 17 January 2011 before the First Appellate Authority
4. Vide FAA order dated 10 February 2011, the FAA gave the appellant the opportunity to inspect the record for having the copies / information of the property file, if he requires any further information.
5. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Respondent was present. Appellant was not present. Respondent stated that the appellant had preferred about 50
- 60 RTI applications since the last 4 - 5 years, all pertaining to the same Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001278 2 property. They also submitted that appellant had been constantly informed in response to several of his RTI applications that he could inspect the files and also take photocopies of the requested documents. However appellant had failed to present himself in the office of the respondent.
Decision notice
7. Taking note of the averments of the respondent and on perusing the facts on record, Commission directs respondent to provide opportunity of inspection to the appellant within a window period of three weeks of receipt of the order to be fixed at a mutually convenient date and time. In case the appellant fails to inspect the property files within this timeframe, his appeals in both the cases listed today will be taken as dismissed.
8. The Commission considers this a typical case in which to apply the ruling of the honourable Supreme Court of India in civil appeal no. 6454 of 2011 in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr vs Aditya Bandhopadhyaya and others in which the Court states:
"The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption an to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001278 3 counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75 % of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing "information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
9. In the spirit of the above observation of the apex court, appellant is advised to use the right given to him under this extraordinary welfare legislation with responsibility and refrain from putting in vexations RTI applications.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 0112610 Copy to:
1. Shri Shub Inder Singh Saubahgya Batika E2/11, East Patel Nagar New Delhi110008 Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001278 4
2. The CPIO Land Development Office Min. of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi110001
3. The Appellate Authority Land Development Office Min. of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi110001 Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001278