Central Information Commission
Baldev Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 February, 2019
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/DDATY/C/2017/154303-BJ
Mr.Baldev Kumar
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Dy. Director, RTI, DDA,
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
2. CPIO
Asstt. Director (H) MIG, DDA,
Office of the Dy. Director (MIG)/H,
D-Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2019
Date of Decision : 26.02.2019
Date of filing of RTI application 08.03.2017
CPIO's response 15.03.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 04.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the details of total number of MIG flats of previous housing scheme lying vacant under the possession of DDA in various sectors of Dwarka, New Delhi, details of identification number of each vacant house lying with DDA for more than 10 years for sector 4/5/11/12 Pocket 1 Dwarka SFS Flats etc. The CPIO and Dy. Director RTI, vide its letter dated 15.03.2017 transferred the RTI application to Asstt. Director (MIG) Housing, D- Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. Subsequently, the PIO/Asstt Director(H) MIG, DDA, Vikas Sadan vide its letter dated 12.06.2017 further transferred the RTI application to Dy. Director (System), DDA, Vikas Sadan, Page 1 of 6 New Delhi. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any satisfactory response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Baldev Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Sunil K. Murjan, Asst. Dir.;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that on the intervention of the Commission, partial information was supplied to him. While ignoring his demand for untimely submission of the details, he raised a pertinent issue regarding the larger public interest involved in seeking such details. It was argued that on one side, the DDA was the net loser of the revenue loss incurred to it due to unsold inventory, it was simultaneously a social hazard for the residents of the area besides a potential law and order problem. The Respondent submitted that the information held on record had been provided to the Complainant. With regard to information pertaining to the details of MIG flats in Sector 12, Pocket 2, Dwarka, it was agreed to cull out additional details from the Engineering Wing and submit the same to the Complainant. A reference was made to the correspondence with the Complainant from time to time for transfer of his application to different divisions within the public authority office. During the hearing, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the legal hardships faced by them in discharge of their responsibilities which could not be spelt out for various reasons. Dwelling upon the enormous magnitude of documentary details sought from the applicants, it was informed that unique problems were faced by the public authority officials of multiple dimensions that could not be captured in the reply to the RTI applications. However, it was assured that there was a constant endeavour to rectify the same. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Asst. Director (MIG) and PIO dated 15.02.2019, wherein a point wise response on the queries raised in the RTI application was provided.
The Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of Page 2 of 6 the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
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 Page 3 of 6 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...."
The Commission further 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. 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 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 Page 4 of 6 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)]."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Commissioner (Housing), DDA to examine the details of the vacant properties and a complete list in accordance with the extant guidelines should be published on its website for perusal by all concerned in the larger public interest.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमलजु का) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 26.02.2019 Copy to:-
1. The Pr. Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, B-Block, 4th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
2. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Commissioner (Housing), DDA, B Block, Ground Floor, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 Page 5 of 6
3. Mr. Manoj Saxena, DD (System), D Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.Page 6 of 6