Central Information Commission
Mrlalit Yadav vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/000208
Appellant : Shri Lalit Yadav
WZ-274A, Madipur Village
New Delhi-110063
Public Authority : The PIO
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023
Date of Hearing : 09.06.2015
Date of Decision : 09.06.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Lalit Yadav
PIO : Absent
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 25.07.2014, the appellant sought information on the 5 issues. II. PIO, vide its response dated 29.08.2014, 09.09.2014, 22.09.2014, 08.10.2014, has provided the part information to the appellant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), Order is not on record. V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 23.02.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
HEARING Appellant appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length. Respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them.
DECISION
1. It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 25.07.2014 sought information from the respondents on five issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 29.08.2014, 09.09.2014, 22.09.2014 & 08.10.2014, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014 before the FAA who could not take up the same for its disposal for the reasons best known to him. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 29.08.2014 & 09.09.2014, transferred the appellant's RTI application to the concerned Public Authority for taking necessary action. Further, another CPIO vide his response dated 22.09.2014 & 08.10.2014, asked the appellant to deposit the requisite fee of `86/- & `1406/- for getting the required information from the respondents.
.....2 -2-
3. During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that he has already submitted the requisite fee of `86/- & `1406/- and for this he has shown the DDA's Cash Receipt dated 29.09.2014 & 21.10.2014. It is further submitted by him that after depositing the requisite fee, PIO vide his subsequent response dated 16.10.2014, provided some part required information, which is also not certified. Thus, in view of this, the Commission feels that the required information has not been provided to the appellant even after depositing the requisite fee, as asked for.
4. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 25.07.2014, respondent's response dated 29.08.2014, 09.09.2014, 22.09.2014 & 08.10.2014, and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
5. The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act 2005, even after lapse of more than ten months period. Thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act 2005 for which it was legislated by Parliament of India. As such, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to allow the appellant's second appeal in toto instead of remanding back to learned FAA for disposal of FA which is even more time consuming. Therefore, it is allowed in toto.
6. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 be also invoked in the matter.
7. In case of failure, in providing the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, by the respondents, within the same time frame, appellant will be at liberty to move this Commission under Section 18 read with Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 for imposing maximum penalty and even recommending for disciplinary proceeding against the erring officers of the DDA. With these observations, appellant's second appeal is hereby closed.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar The PIO DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023 Shri Lalit Yadav WZ-274A, Madipur Village New Delhi-110063