Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 April, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No.(s):- CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630773-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630775-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630776-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630778-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630958-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630959-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630960-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630965-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630968-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630970-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630972-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630974-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/C/2018/631949-BJ
Mr. Varun Krishna
.... निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Asstt. Director (LSB) Rohini
Delhi Development Authority, Land Sales Branch (Rohini)
Room No. C - 3/111, C - Block
1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.04.2020
Date of Decision : 16.04.2020
Page 1 of 15
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630773-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 08.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of point no 1 of letter dated 05.03.2018 from Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division), the daily progress from the date of receipt till the date of filing of the RTI application, etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 29.08.2018 provided a suitable response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630775-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 08.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of point no 2 of letter dated 05.03.2018 from Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to the Vice Chairman, DDA, the Inward Number and the date of receiving letter, etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 29.08.2018 provided a suitable response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630776-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 07.08.2018
CPIO's response 29.08.2018
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 Nil
Page 2 of 15
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of letter dated 28.02.2018 from Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/LSB (Rohini), the date of receipt along with the inward number, etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 29.08.2018 provided a suitable response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI- 4 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630778-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 07.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding letter dated 28.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); evidence of receipt and dispatch of the aforementioned letter to the offices of all the concerned officials accountable for providing Action Taken Report on the matter; copy of the action taken report with regard to the aforementioned letter.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 28.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981 the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA, and thereafter the required information was provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI- 5 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630958-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 04.08.2018
CPIO's response 29.08.2018
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 Nil
Page 3 of 15
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding letter dated 12.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); date of receipt of the aforementioned letter and inward number; daily progress from date of receipt till date of the application including the names, designations, email addresses and official mobile number of the officials with whom representations were lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of the action taken by him/ her and daily progress report on his current RTI.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 12.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981 the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA and thereafter the required information were provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630959-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 04.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding letter dated 12.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); evidence of receipt and dispatch of letter dated 12.02.2018 to the office of all the concerned officials accountable for providing the Action Taken Report; copy of the action taken report with regard to the letter dated 12.02.2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 12.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981 the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA and thereafter the required information were provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Page 4 of 15
RTI -7 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630960-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 04.08.2018
CPIO's response 29.08.2018
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 Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding letter dated 12.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); evidence of receipt and dispatch of letter dated 12.02.2018 to the office of all the concerned officials accountable for providing the Action Taken Report; copy of the action taken report with regard to the letter dated 12.02.2018.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 12.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent a reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981, the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA and thereafter the required information were provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI- 8 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630965-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 04.08.2018
CPIO's response 29.08.2018
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
[
Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding letter dated 12.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); name, designation and official mobile number of the official accountable for not responding to the request made by M/o Housing and Urban Affairs letter dated 12.02.2018; action taken report by the controlling authority upon erring official; if no action was taken then reasons in records alongwith the name, designation and official mobile number of the controlling authority.
Page 5 of 15The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 12.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981 the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA and thereafter the required information were provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI- 9 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630968-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 04.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding letter dated 12.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); name, designation and official mobile number of the official accountable for not responding to the request made by MoHUA letter dated 12.02.2018; action taken report by the controlling authority upon erring official; if no action was taken then reasons in records alongwith the name, designation and official mobile number of the controlling authority.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 12.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme- 1981 the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA and thereafter the required information were provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630970-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2018
CPIO's response 29.08.2018
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 Nil
Page 6 of 15
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding letter dated 25.06.2018 from the M/o Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to the Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); date of receipt by their office and inward number; daily progress from date of receipt till date of the application including names, designations, email addresses and official mobile numbers of the officials with who, representation was/ is lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of the action taken by him/ her; daily progress report on the instant RTI.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 informed the Complainant that a letter dated 25.05.2018 was received by their office on 28.06.2018 wherein five clarifications were required by the Section Officer, M/o Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division). The required clarifications were immediately processed to the Higher Authorities and point wise reply was sent to the Section Officer vide letter dated 06.08.2018. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630972-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding letter dated 25.06.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); evidence of receipt and dispatch of letter dated 25.06.2018 to the office of all the concerned officials accountable for providing the Action Taken Report; expected date by which Action Taken Report was expected and daily progress report on the instant RTI application.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 informed the Complainant that a letter dated 25.05.2018 was received by their office on 28.06.2018 wherein five clarifications were required by the Section Officer, M/o Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division). The required clarifications were immediately processed and sent to the Higher Authorities and point wise reply was sent to the Section Officer vide letter dated 06.08.2018. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Page 7 of 15
RTI - 12 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/630974-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 03.08.2018
CPIO's response 29.08.2018
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 Nil
[
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points in respect of letter dated 25.06.2018 from Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/LSB (Rohini), name, designation and official mobile number of the official accountable for not responding and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 29.08.2018 provided a suitable response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
[ RTI - 13 File No. CIC/DDATY/C/2018/631949-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 07.08.2018 CPIO's response 29.08.2018 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 Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding letter dated 28.02.2018 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) addressed to Dy. Director/ LSB (Rohini); name, designation and official mobile number of the official accountable for not responding to the request made by MoHUA letter dated 28.02.2018; action taken report by the controlling authority upon erring official; if no action was taken then reasons in records alongwith the name, designation and official mobile number of the controlling authority.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 stated that a letter dated 28.02.2018 and thereafter a subsequent reminder/ letter dated 05.03.2018 was received in the O/o the Vice Chairman, DDA on 05.03.2018 from Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) wherein DDA was requested to furnish a statement indicating the existing provisions in the Rohini Residential Scheme-1981, the proposed amendment therein alongwith adequate justification. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration with the higher authorities in DDA and thereafter the required information were provided to the Section Officer, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) by their office vide letter dated 23.03.2018 with the approval of competent authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Page 8 of 15HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Varun Krishna through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Pramod Kumar, AD (LSB), Rohini through TC;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that despite repeated attempts, no information had been received by him. He specifically sought information regarding the letter received from the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs with regard to Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 and the action taken thereon. The Respondent feigned ignorance of the subject matter and submitted that he was new to the desk and therefore could not answer the queries contained therein. It was alleged that the Complainant was filing a large number of RTI applications on account of his vested interest. Opposing vehemently to the charges levelled by the Respondent, it was categorically submitted that penal action needs to be initiated against the concerned CPIO for not replying to the queries raised by him wherein larger public interest was involved.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) 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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 9 of 15
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision 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 Complainant, 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 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."Page 10 of 15
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.
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
The Commission referred to the decision of 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 Page 11 of 15 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':
"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 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...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:Page 12 of 15
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."Page 13 of 15
The Complainant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and considering the inability of the Respondent to reply to the queries raised by the Complainant, the Commission directs Mr. Manish Gupta, Pr. Commissioner, DDA to enquire into the subject matter and fix responsibility on the erring officials within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the pandemic in the Country, under intimation to the Complainant and a copy marked to the Commission.
The Complaints stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 16.04.2020 Page 14 of 15 Copy to:
1. The Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, 6, Raj Niwas Marg, Ludlow Castle, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054 (for information)
2. Vice Chairman, DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023
3. Mr. Manish Gupta, Pr. Commissioner, DDA, D Block, 1stFloor,VikasSadan, INA, New Delhi 110023 Page 15 of 15