Central Information Commission
Shankar Singh vs Gnctd on 3 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/139094
Shankar Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board,
Punarwas Bhawan, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.04.2023
PIO replied on : 22.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 30.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.09.2023
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 27.04.2023 seeking the following information:
"मा यवर, स वनय नवेदन यह है क मेर जानकार म आया है क आपके वभाग के वालापुर कायलय के अंतगत कुछ !लाट# को बोल (नीलामी) लगाकर अलॉटमट कया गया है। अतः जनसूचना अ.धकार अ.ध नयम-2005 के तहत न1न2ल3खत जानकार उपल6ध कराएं।
1 आपके वभाग 8वारा 9द:ल म अब तक कतने सै1पल !लाट बनाए गए ह;। इसक= जानकार कॉलोनी, !लाट सं>या स9हत उपल6ध कराएं।
2 वालापरु के ए-541, ए-542 इन !लाट# पर जेजे ?लम 8वारा सपल घर बनाए गए। िज ह बाद म नीलाम कर 9दया गया। यह नीलामी कौन सी तार ख और कौन से वष म क= गई। इसक= सम?त जानकार उपल6ध कराएं।
3 यह नीलामी कस नयम, आधार व कारण के क= गई। इसक= सम?त जानकार उपल6ध कराएं।
4 Gया इस तरह क= नीलामी आपके वभाग 8वारा कोई और भी क= गई। य9द हां तो उसक= भी सम?त जानकार उपल6ध कराएं।
5 वालापुर के ए-541, ए-542 नीलाम कये गये इन !लाट# को कसने बोल लगाकर आपके वभाग से Hा!त कया। उस IयिGत नाम और कतनी रा2श म Hा!त कया। संपण ू जानकार उपल6ध कराएं।
6 वालापुर के ए-541, ए-542 नीलाम कये गये इन !लाट# को Gया मा2लकाना हक Hा!त है । य9द हां तो यह कस आधार पर 9दया गया। है। जानकार उपल6ध कराएं।"Page 2 of 5
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.05.2023 stating as under:
"1-6. जानकार IयिGतगत होने के कारण तथा आपसे स1बं.धत न होने के कारण RTI Act-2005, Section 8(1) J तत ृ ीय प६ होने के कारण नह द जा सकती"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 30.06.2023, held as under.
"It is to inform that you have been repeating RTIs/Appeals of similar issues/subject natures time and again. In this regard you have also been informed about the decision of CIC [No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014} wherein it is stated that: (Copy enclosed)
1. Even a single repletion of RTI Application would demand the valuable time of the FAA and if it also reaches second appeal, that of Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty and.
2. Every repetition of RTI Application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act. CIC thus, decided that:
(a) No Scope of repeating under RTI Act.
(b) Citizen has no right to repeat.
(c) Repetition shall be ground of refusal
(d) Appeals can be rejected.
The queries/interrogative questions raised by you are strictly not covered under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Information as existing in material form can only be provided. It is not appropriate to raise such grievances under RII, as its core job is to disseminate/provide information With these remarks, the appeal stands rejected."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present with Shri Rajendra Kharra, in person Respondent: Shri Raju Sirsikar, PIO, Shri Loha Singh, LDC, appeared in person.Page 3 of 5
The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was arbitrarily denied by the respondent on the ground of it being third-party information. He stated that information sought specially on point Nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application about sample flats Nos. A-541, and A-542 which was auctioned against the rules as the sample flats could not have been auctioned.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity, hence, the exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that as per the rules sample flats are not auctioned. However, they stated that they will have to check as to whether the flats number mentioned in the RTI application are sample flats or not or any policy change has happened.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The appellant sought information regarding sample flats made by the respondents. The respondent failed to explain as to how the information sought about sample flats was exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Thus, the exemption claimed by the respondent is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The appellant submitted that the sample flats referred in the RTI application were illegally auctioned by the respondent public authority despite knowing the facts that such sample flats could not have been auctioned as per the Rules. In this regard, the respondent stated that they will have to check the records to verify the allegations made by the appellant. However, the respondent also stated that as per the Rules samples flats should not be auctioned but they are not sure if some changes have occurred in the meantime.
In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information to the appellant on point Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application. As regards the information sought on point Nos. 5 Page 4 of 5 and 6 of the RTI application, the respondent is directed to verify the records and if the flats number mentioned above are auctioned then, specific reply including the condition on which flats were auctioned be communicated to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission should be complied with within three weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Punarwas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)