Central Information Commission
Om Prakash Verma vs Estate Office on 15 January, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ESOFF/A/2018/170301-UM
Mr. Om Prakash Verma
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Estate Office, Town Hall Building,
Sec-17, Chandigarh-160017
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.01.2021
Date of Decision : 14.01.2021
Date of RTI application 26.06.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 27.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.11.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought certified copy of allotment letter along with the terms and conditions of allotment of plot No. 5, Cultural Belt, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh which was allotted to a registered Welfare Association i.e. Mair Rajut Sabha Regd. in 1978 on concessional rate for social activities of the Community.
The CPIO, Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh, vide its reply dated 12.07.2018, requested the Secretary, Mair Rajput Sabha, to intimate their office within 10 days as to whether information/documents sought by the Applicant may be supplied or not. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018, stated that no larger public interest will be served in sharing third party information with the Appellant, after taking into consideration the objection made by the third party.
Page 1 of 6Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash Verma through Audio Conferencing;
Respondent: Ms. Anita Rani (Superintending In-charge) and Mr. Dharam Singh (Senior Assistant), Estate Office, Chandigarh, through Audio Conferencing;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information sought has been wrongly denied to him being "Third Party" information. The Appellant further submitted that he is a member of the Welfare Association and therefore, he desired to have the information sought by him in his RTI application. In its reply, the Respondent present during the hearing, informed the Commission that no document was submitted by the Appellant in support of his contention regarding his membership for the said Welfare Association and hence, the information sought was accordingly denied.
On being queried by the Commission as to how the letter of allotment and terms and conditions of the Welfare Association could be treated as a "Third Party" information as the information sought in respect of Welfare Association is not an individual person rather it is an association working for the larger public interest / welfare of the society, no cogent response was offered by the Respondent. The Respondent present during the hearing, however, agreed to furnish the information sought by the Appellant on a condition that the Appellant shall furnish a document in support of his membership to the said Association. The Appellant also agreed to submit a copy of his membership in support of his contention to the CPIO.
It is observed by the Commission that the activity stated in the RTI application and held in the records of the Respondent Public Authority is a public activity wherein suo moto disclosures should be made. The terms and conditions of allotment to a registered Welfare Association i. e. Mair Rajut Sabha Regd. in 1978 on concessional rate for social activities of the Community, should be disclosed on its website for the benefit of public at large.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ferani Hotels Private Limited vs. the State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 9064- 9065 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32073-32074/ 2015) dated 27.09.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court has directed to disclose the building plans, sanctioned plans, and details of commercial establishments in the public domain. The relevant observations made in the decision are mentioned hereunder:
"34. In the end, we would like to say that keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan.
The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA require the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made Page 2 of 6 by the Authority. In our view, keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA."
Furthermore, the Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. Thus, information relating to allotment of plot along with terms and conditions should be disclosed suo motu in the public domain for the ease and convenience of the public at large.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. 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 and 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."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency Page 3 of 6 and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Furthermore, the Commission observed that the issues raised in the RTI application pertained to the larger public interest and hence the same should be answered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Commission therefore referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."Page 4 of 6
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions of the Superior Courts cited above, the Commission directs the CPIO to disclose all the details available with the Respondent Public Authority in respect of a registered Welfare Association (Mair Rajut Sabha), to whom a plot was allotted by the Respondent Public Authority for social activities of community as also the terms and conditions of such allotment on its website in the larger public interest in compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further directs the CPIO to furnish the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above directions.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत एवं सत्यानपत प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] निनांक / Date: 14.01.2021 Page 5 of 6 Copy to:
1. Dy. Commission-cum-Estate Officer, O/o Estate Office, Town Hall Building, Sec-17, Chandigarh-160017 (For information and necessary action).
2. First Appellate Authority, Estate Office, O/o Estate Office, Town Hall Building, Sec-17, Chandigarh-160017 Page 6 of 6