Central Information Commission
Krishan Chander vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 September, 2019
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/2018/116054-BJ
Mr. Krishan Chander
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
SE (HQ), Delhi Development Authority
Office of the Chief Engineer (Rohini)
Madhuban Chowk, New Delhi - 110085
2. CPIO and EE(P)/CC 14, DDA
Office of the PIO/EE(P)/C.C. 14
Rohini Office Complex, Madhuban Chowk
Sector - 14, Rohini
New Delhi - 110085
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2019
Date of Decision : 16.09.2019
Date of RTI application 06.11.2017
CPIO's response 05.01.2018/
16.01.2018/
25.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 04.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 13.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the maintenance contracts for (1) Lifts; (2) Lights; (3) Water Supply; (4) Water Treatment; (5) Fire System etc at for Rohini Heights Apartment having details of the amount of service condition, etc. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.
The CPIO, EE (P)/CC14, DDA vide its letter dated 16.01.2018 enclosed a copy of the response dated 05.01.2018 forwarded by the Executive Engineer/ RPD-8, DDA Rohini wherein it was stated that points 01, 02 and 05 of the RTI application pertained to the Electrical Division. As regards point no. 03 and 04, the copy of the award letter was enclosed. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer (E) Electrical Division No. 09 vide its letter dated 25.01.2018 also provided a point wise response to the Appellant. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.02.2018 while enclosing the copy of the CPIOs response dated 16.01.2018 and their office letter dated 29.01.2018 regretted for the delay in replying Page 1 of 5 to the RTI application for the reason that the field staff was busy in ongoing work of Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 in Sector 36 and 37, Rohini since the work was being monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Manohar, EE, Mr. Ajay Kumar, EE/ ELD-9 and Mr. S. N. Garg, EE(P)/ CC-14;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent (CPIO/ CC-14, DDA) submitted that the response received from the concerned sections i.e., Executive Engineer, RPD-8, DDA and Executive Engineer (E), Electrical Division No. 9 was provided to the Appellant vide their letter dated 16.01.2018 and 29.01.2018 respectively. On being queried, if the complete information as sought in the RTI application was provided to the Appellant and if the details of the contractors alongwith the terms and conditions on the basis of which the contract were entered into by them was disclosed on the website or not, the Respondent submitted that the details of quantity awarded, measurements, tender terms, etc. were available on their website. On being further questioned if the website details were provided to the Appellant or not, the Respondent replied in the negative.
The Commission was in receipt of a copy of a communication dated 03.09.2019 sent by the PIO and EE (P) CC-14, DDA to the FAA and Suptdg. Engineer (Elect). The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent CPIO and EE (P), CC-14, DDA dated 06.09.2019 wherein the factual position in the matter was narrated.
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.
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 Page 2 of 5 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 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)]."
In the context of disclosure of tender documents, the Commission finds that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jamia Millia Islamia v. Ikramuddin WP (C) No. 5677/2011 dated 22.11.2011, is pertinent to this matter wherein it was observed that:
"The act of entering into an agreement with any other person/entity by a public authority would be a public activity, and as it would involve giving or taking of consideration, which would entail involvement of public funds, the agreement would also involve public interest. Every citizen is entitled to know on what terms the Agreement/settlement has been reached by the petitioner public authority with any other entity or individual."
The Commission also draws reference to the judgment of the Division bench of Jharkhand High Court, in State of Jharkhand v. Navin Kumar Sinhga and Anr., AIR 2008 Jharkhand 19 dated 08/08/2007, held as under:
Page 3 of 5"26........The question therefore that falls for consideration is as to whether disclosure of various documents submitted by the bidders is a trade secret or commercial confidence or intellectual property. Prima facie, we are of the view that once a decision is taken in the matter of grant of tender, there is no justification to keep it secret. People have a right to know the basis on which the decision has been taken. If tenders are invited by the public authority and on the basis of tender documents, the eligibility of a tenderor or a bidder is decided, then those tender documents cannot be secret, that too, after the tender is decided and work order is issued on the ground that it will amount to disclosure of trade secret or commercial confidence. If the authorities of Government refuse to disclose the document, the very purpose of the Act will be frustrated. Moreover, disclosure of information, sought for by the petitioner, cannot and shall not be a trade secret or commercial confidence; rather disclosure of such information shall be in public interest, inasmuch as it will show the transparency in the activities of the Government.
27. ......... Since the tender process is completed and contract has been awarded, it will not influence the contract. Besides the above, a citizen has a right to know the genuineness of a document submitted by the tenderer in the matter of grant of tender for consultancy work or for any other work. As noticed above, the tender process is completed and the contract has been awarded, therefore, it will not influence the contract. In any view of the matter, the document in question cannot be treated as trade secret or commercial confidence. In our considered opinion a contract entered into by the public authority with a private person cannot be treated as confidential after completion of contract."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and provide point wise response to the Appellant including the details of the website where the information can be accessed as also suo motu disclose the details on their website, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 16.09.2019
Page 4 of 5
Copy to:
1. The Pr. Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, B-Block, 4th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
2. FAA and Suptd. Engineer, CC-14, DDA, Rohini Office Complex, Madhuban Chowk, Sector-
14, Rohini, Delhi 110085 Page 5 of 5