Akshay Jain vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Hq on 17 December, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Akshay Jain vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Hq on 17 December, 2021

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.:       CIC/NDMCH/A/2020/125892

 Akshay Jain                                           .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम

    1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
       Executive Engineer-(Bldg.)/HQ., North Delhi
       Municipal Corporation, Building Department,
       Headquarters, 8th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
       Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.

                                                           ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   04.02.2020
  CPIO replied on                   :   22.05.2020
  First appeal filed on             :   13.06.2020
  First Appellate Authority order   :   13.08.2020
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   04.09.2020
  Date of Hearing                   :   16.12.2021
  Date of Decision                  :   16.12.2021



                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya

  Information sought

The Appellant sought following information:

Page 1 of 5

PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 22.05.2020, as under:

Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 13.06.2020.

Page 2 of 5

The FAA vide order dated 13.08.2020 held that:-

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: present in person Respondent: Mr Kumar Mahendra, EE (Bldg) & PIO, Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO. He further submitted that PIO has not clarified the queries he had sought in the instant RTI Application with regards to internal partition in the house.

PIO submitted that point wise relevant information has already been provided to the appellant on 22.05.2020.

Decision At the outset Commission observes that reply provided by then PIO was not within the prescribed time limit of 30 days as per RTI Act. Commission expresses displeasure on such a conduct of then PIO and warns him to remain extremely careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.

Page 3 of 5

The present PIO is directed to serve a copy of this order, then PIO, at his present address for taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission.

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant is seeking interpretation of certain provision of law with regards to internal partition. In view of the foregoing, Commission remarks that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides for the PIO to provide such information which means "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

Further, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act enumerates that "right to information" means "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;.."

As much as the PIO has a statutory duty to respond to RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act, a RTI Applicant also has to adhere to the same provisions while seeking information under the Act.

In view of aforesaid observations, it will suffice to say that Appellant has sought clarification of the PIO which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, PIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance, noncompliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act. Yet, PIO in his wisdom has provided reply on 22.05.2020 and same is deemed appropriate. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Page 4 of 5

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission