Central Information Commission
Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Revenue Department on 5 December, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
*dqq.fireTt+r
CenLral In flormation Commission
Ererri,T{rqqFt, gftrfir
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
T$Gtd, New Delhi - I10067
k#+q{-ftiwr / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/R-EVDP /N2022/152O53-UM
ShriSubhash Chandra Agrawal
.:..offi/Appellant
VERSUS
qdlq
CPIO
1. RevenueDepartment
Govt.OfNCTDelhi
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-l10054.
2. Lt. Governor Delhi
RajNiwas Marg, Delhil 1 0054
3. O/o Chief MinisterGovt.OfNCTDelhi,
3d floor. Delhi Secretariat,l.P. Estate,
New Delhi- 1 10002
4. O/o Chief Secretary Govt.OfNCTDelhi,
5th floor, Delhi Secretariat I.P. Estate,
New Delhi- I 10002
5. Wakf Board Delhi,
VikasBhawan-Il, 7th Floor, A-Wing, Civil Lines,
Delhi - 110054
sftHrfr.ror /Respondent
Date of Hearing 18.11.2022
Date of Decision 25.tl.2022
Date of RTI application 76.02.2022
CPIO's response 25.02.2022
Date ofthe First Appeal 13.o4.2022
First Appellate Authority's response Not oII recofd
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.11.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points, as under:-
l. ('omplda d &laiLd iEhEtflin nit.SE '^!t dl teietC fils-reiag*'rm&p+*karr.,!o,;,cuu.rb ct o:r,]ei*,*r [*ac lo Si] ,&tsb'tgNfitrriftilrdff.r bara$E h b] $ifi &ri b] Ddti &.nenrnrd anty to arrffi *rj \---
ucrr o t:oaqorr--oa-Drrt-
--
:- fnnt norf"""of,r,cqf[:I-Lf1tri rsntirxlB uni.rof mlq1gl rriar d*ior'hrmruiEn:ni!.Ba.ry llfi{fiF h tt; otll6 ierrt t h.itE ;ii{yiilc{ b, tkBd OE,tln*Earl b lne# icd oosg J. Aoour.,$fflhriarl,r*:nurw'Fnna,y,t696ubbI{it6ft.8bri8t,dlorE+oarhr,nEflxl,ir,,.erEr ilr m'x{ua* i6 Odhi l. Yrlr.rir€ ararir 0n rslniig*omtri*uuoresy ba*fxr h aoy *ttr* forra ls Iffir &t stt*rJ in rnqlF, of Dclhl cr€l simc rrdr p*itlnoaoaril*rtroa*ry h.rft ir ary orlr hrn 3t tlidt pryitr s'r*is{iq &c d.ty &fil rrh.ith $dr EtariErtro$'rxic*,6oclrrr1 balrfiu in ror lds furrn llt kh; paid 5- frrtph* {urlnra,.- ir &lhifmrv*rsr: fur prori$rry s:aieiire*rrrie,1ou.du.!.bfirlld ai eU olts Srn lr lfisrr E l O0s! in O.E!i Mc+E* G" lr drcrt ary iof,xtaioc oe *r;ord $My $r{r sigkgtolonfrstlrEofillrl,t{6{ffG ilr 6} Si.r h *il be puri&i $'. D!'li Corwar l,o FiEb of lr) r$Si€i ${ d! ct}c: rairrrril.v &.:iEirr6. (t t ttindr ter+l€i la ror b (aI fr\t?il c@h,. iE&tmii6 oo ra.F hlnt b F.\ df id!:ar4xdEartrifl !rEs*) baafI} l! !,ty u*r 6xr,.r *y Ltlli 6*rerawd ts Fie '*tol t slrr 6lrJlottdr aiirraain Glits*lr lb1Hiagltsryl6 fi, To.J $fiS!+r L'f (t) GljidltBr.r (bl (lxr,$.r (c} irn*le! ol ottE EildrilyrEtig!,ts
9. fr&rl lBrllru"of Hirdu hrEplr h D;thi ltl H. t:_ The CPIO, Dept. of Revenue, vide letter dated 25.Q2.2022transferred the request to the concemed Departments. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO at Dept. ofRevenue, the Appellant filed a First Appeal which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Therealier, the Appellant fiIed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant:Present in Person Respondent:Mr. Mukesh Kumar SO CM office, Mr. Vikaskumar Sr. Assistant Revenue Deptt., Mr. Manvinder Singh SDM HQ Revenue Dept., Mr. Pradeep Tayal DS , Mr JP Kothari DS LG office, Mr. Haider Ali HR Delhi Wakf Board, Mr Tariq LrDC Delhi Wakf Board, MsShaista Siddique LO Delhi Wakf Board Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application, submitted that incomplete information has been fumished to him that too after a delay of approximatelynine months and after much dithering which indicated attempts to initially hide the information in violation of the spirit and even provisions of the RTI Act. He said that he had sought the information in reference to a Zee news-report dated 23.01.2019 (produced by the Appellant in his written submissions dated 16.1'1.2022) wherein it was clearly stated that " Delhi Chief Minister declared that saldries to Imams and helpers in mosques under Delhi Walcf Board will be increased by Delhi Wakf Board from rupees 10000 to ntpees 18000 per month for Imams and from rupees 9000 to tupees l6000for helpers."
Further he said that the news-report also indicated that as per announcement by Hon'bleDelhi Chief Minister, monthly salaries to Imams and helpers of DWB mosques ofRs 14000 and Rs 12000 would also be given to Imams and helpers of mosques which are outside the domain of DWB.The Appellant further said that news-report also indicated that it was for the first time that salary expense of such mosques would be covered by a govemment body.
The appellant requested the Commission to take note of the fact that while Delhi Wakf Board(DWB) in its reply dated 02.11.2022 denied that it was giving salary to Imams or any other person but in its revised reply on 16.11.2022 given during the CIC hearing held on 18.11'2022, it informed that honorariums were being given to knams and helpers by DWB which showed a clear attempt to hide the information in the first instance. The details of the honorariums are as below:
Financial Year Honorarium
2014-15 Rs. 2,68,10,123.00
20ts-r6 Rs. i,re,oz,ooo.oo
2016-77 Rs. 2,75,43,907.00
2017-t8 Rs. 1,42,22,000.00
2018- 19 Rs. 2,33,58,333.00
2019-20 Rs. 9,34,83,700.00
2020-21 Rs.9,62,i6,000.00
The Appellant requestedthatthe details of the amounts provided to the lmams of those mosques who are not in domain of DWB, may also be provided by the concemed departrnent of Government of NCT Delhi (GNCTD) to the appellant but now free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005, together with complete conespondence and file notings.
\ The Appellant averred that the reply fumished on point no 3 of the RTI Application is improper.He also said that point no 1 apart from DWB, also pertains to the concemed department of GNCTD giving salaries to Imams and helpers ir the mosques of Delhi which are not under domain of DWB, and hence his RTI application should be forwarded there also. He alleged that it is wrongly claimed by the DWB that point no 5does not pertain to them. The Respondent, DWB, in its reply had said that the point-numbers 5 to 12 pertain to GNCTD and not to DWB.
The Appellant pointed out that DWBduring the ClC-hearing providedacopy of file notings on movement of the RTI Application as sought under query l2,buton roL,*.lil*.r *O *Ut t'6o without any signah.res. He demanded that proper file notings on moveiient' irf RTI Apptication with signatures of concemed officials should be provided by DWB as sought in qudry no 12 of the RTI Application.
The Appellant further requested the Commission to direct the Respondent authority (DWB) to fumish a revised reply on query nos. 1,3,5&12 of the RTI Application. For rest of the queries i.e no. 6 to12 (and also query-number 1), the RTI application may be transferred to tfg,Fpnceme$ public authority u/s 6(3) ofthe RTI Act 2005. The Appellant pointed out that the reply dated, 16.11.2022 given by Delhi Wakf Board during the CIC hearing reveals that total honorarium given to Imams and others in mosques under control of DWB quadrupled since 2014. He said it first sharply declined from Rs. 2,68,10,123 ( Approx. Rs 2.68 crore) in FY 2014-15 to Rs 1,42,22,000 (Approx. Rs 1.42 crore) in FY 2017-18, and then sharply increased to Rs 9,62,16,000 (Approx. Rs 9.62 crore) in FY 2020-21. Significantly, this sudden nse came subsequent to announcement said to have been made by Hon'ble CM of Delhi in tle conference of Imams as per the news report placed on the file.
The appellant also demanded a copy of notings by any concerned deparftnent of GNCTD for implementing announcement made by Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi in the meeting of Imams and others for raising salaries of Imams and others in mosques of Delhi, as per news-report placed on file.
The representative of respondent public authority, DWB, clarified that DWB pays honorarium, and not the salaries, to the Imams and muezzins. He said that they have furnished a reply on the said RTI Application. The Appellant claimed that an incomplete reply has been furnished that too after a delay of approximately nine months. When queried as to why legitimate information was denied initially, the Respondent (DWB) said that there are huge number of RTI applications being filed on the same matter using the word 'salary'thus indicating misuse of the RTI Act. He said that in another RTI Application they have given the answers where the word 'Honorarium' is used. He fuither handed over a copy ofrevised information dated 16.11.2022 during the hearing.
MsShaista Siddique, Law Officer of DWB, said that Delhi WakfBoard was formed under a religious Act only for the purpose of religious and other charity matters. She tried to explain the matter of financial benefits to the imams by salrng that while the temples are run by trusts which look after the needs of the priests. the Masjids under the jurisdiction of DWB do not get any kind of support from any truSt. She said the honorariums to tle Imams and Muezzins in Delhi was being given by DWB as per the 1993 order of the Apex court in the case between"All India Imam Org1nisation And ... vs (Jnion Of India And Ors" by Justice Sahai that it is the responsibility of the State and Delhi Wakf Board to maintain knams and others.
When queried by the Cori-iirission about the yearly grant received by the Delhi Wakf Board, representative of DWB submifted that a total govemment annual grant of approximately Rs 62 crore is givetr to them bf the Delhi Govemment which is further divided into five heads namely salaries of Imams and others, widows' pensions, establishment, Wakf development, staff salary. Further he said the DWB receives rental amount of approx 30 lakhs every month from the rented Wakf properties.
The Appellant demanded that CM oflice (Delhi) may be directed to provide complete information relating to implementation of statement made by Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi in meetings of Imams as per the news report placed on the file. He also sought from the CM office information on query-numbers 1 and 6 to 12 by seeking inputs from the concerned deparftnent under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act 2005. He explained it was necessary because neither Delhi Wakf Board nor Department Of Revenue (Minority Cell) GNCTD is having any information on query nos. 6 to 12 n ' of related to similar salaries to be provided by Government of (NCT) Qelhi to (a) priests of temples , other minority religions and (b) to priests of Hindu temples, further requesting complrte , ,' information on steps taken to provide salaries by Delhi Govt. to (a) priests of temples of other' ....., tt"
i The Appellant in his written submission dated 16.11.2022 had pointed out the most pitiabley"
condition of an S0-year-old priest of the tempte'located in the street where he liues, u'hir '. '"u,., ,, "Og a monthly salary of just Rs 2000 from the temple against priests of temples of Hindus and other religion guaranteeing equal treatrnent to all religions. He further said that his submissions made on PGMS portal of Delhi Government was disposed of by DC Central office as "This is a policy matter and this ofrce cannot take any action on the mattei' .
The Appellant further brought the focus of the Commission towards article 27 of the Indian Constirution which reads as under:
27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropiated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particulnr religion or religions denomination Thus he claimed that, the utilization of tax-payers' money for promotion or maintenance of a particular religion is against provisions of the Indian Constitution. He said by filing this Second Appeal, he has tried to bring to the notice ofthe Commission that the provisions ofthe Constitution should be preserved in letter and spirit by the State treating at par all religions but these were being violated in Delhi by paying honorariums to only Imams, and not to priests ofother religions.
The Appellant requested for a befitting compensation from Delhi Wakf Board /Department of Revenue (Minority Division/CM office for mental agony he underwent, the man hours he spent and the resources he was made to spend in pursuing this matter u/hich ultimately forced him to take the important matter to the stage of Second Appeal at CIC.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts ol the case and the submissions made by the parties, the Commission observes that it is apparent from the news report attached by the Appellant that the Chief Minister had announced increase in the salary of lmams in his public announcement dated 23.01.2019, whereas the Delhi Wakf Board initially denied that any salary was being paid to the Imams but later in their revised reply said that it is only an honorarium not salary. The Commission observes that there was a clear attempt to hide the information in the initial period by a play of words which showed complete lack of transparency on the part of the Respondent authorities in a case which in turn affects the provisions of the Constitution of India, and also social harmony and uniform applicability of laws for all the religion in keeping with the constitutional direction that the citizens of all religions should be treated equally.The representative of DWB during the ClC-hearing also said that it had received a huge number ofRTI applications regarding salaries to Imams and others. Therefore the Commission directs the CPIO (Delhi Wakf Board) to re-examine the matter and fumishcorrect, complete and detailed information on point numbers, 1, 3,5,6 and 12 of the RTI Application to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission also directs the CPIO (Delhi Wakf Board) to transfer the RTI Application on query nos. land 6 to 12 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 to the concemed deparftnents, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of30 days from the receipt ofthis order under the intimation to the Commission.
Further the Commission directs CM oflice to provide information on query numbers land 6 to 12 of the RTI Application, and also complete information with all related documents on honorariums being paid to lmams and others in mosques of Delhi which are not in the domain of Delhi Wakf Board if needed, by collecting it from the concemed department/body of GNCTD r-r/s 5 (4) of the RTI Act 2005, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.All documents are now to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission flrther directs CPIO,DelhiWakf Board, to provide compensation of Rs 25000/- to the Appellant keeping in view the mental agony he faced and man hours and resources he lost due to stonewalling of the information by DWB for almost nine montls. Here the Commission also takes note ofthe appellant's submission that he had also tried to ensure necessary action by directly writing to CM office and through PGMS & CPGRAMS portals.
Further with regard to the judgment by the Supreme Coufi in the case betweet"All India Imam Organisation And ... vs Union Of India And Ors" or 73 May, 1993, that opened the doors to special financial benefits from public treasury to only Imams and muezzins in the mosques, the Commission observes that the highest Court ofthe country in passing this order acted in violation of the provisions ofthe Constitution, particularly Article 27, which says that the tax payers money will not be used to favour any particular religion. The Commission notes that the said judgment set a wrong precedent in the country and has become a point of unnecessary political slugfest and also social disharmony in the society.
It is necessary to go into the history when it comes to giving special religious benefits to Muslim community by the State. A religious (Islamic) nation Pakistan was born out of tle demand of a section of Indian Muslims for partition of India along religious lines. Despite Pakistan choosing to be a religious (Islamic) nation, India chose a Constitution guaranteeing equal rights to all religions. It is necessary to note here that it was the policy of giving special benefits to Muslim community before 1947 that played a key role in encouraging pan-Islamic and fissiparous tendencies in a section of Muslims uttimately leading to the nation's partition. So giving salaries to Imams and others only in mosques, amounts to not just betraying the Hindu community and members of other non-Muslim Minority religions but also encouraging pan-Islamist tendencies amongst a section of Indian Muslims which are already visible. Steps like giving special religious benefits to Muslim community only like the one taken up in the present matter, in fact severely affects interfaith harmony as they invite contempt for the Muslims as a whole from a section of ultra nationalist population.
Lastly, it is pertinent to take note of the fact that the Delhi Wakf Board gets an arxrual grant of approximately Rs 62 crores from the Delhi Government while its own monthly income fiom its own independent sources isjust around Rs 30 lakhs a month. So the monthly honorarium ofRs 18,000 and Rs 16,000 being given to the lmams and Muezzins of DWB mosques in Delhi is being paid by the Delhi Government vimrally from the tax payers money which in tum is in sharp contrast with the example quoted by the appellant in which the priest of a Hindu temple is getting a paltry Rs 2,000 per month from the trust controlling the said temple.
Those who justify such steps in the name ofprotection to religious minorities raise a question that if a particular religious Minority has a right to protection, the Majority community too has a right to protection in a multi-religious country where it is incumbent that the rights of the members of ail religions are protected equally in the interest ofinter-faith harmony and unity ofthe nation.
The Commission therefore deems this matter of extreme importance for the unity and integrity of the nation and interfaith harmony, ind directs its registry to forward a copy of this order to Hon'bleUnion Law Minister with the Commission's recommendation for suitable action to ensure enforcement of provisions of Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India in letter and spirit to keep all religions of India at par in terms of payment of monthly remuneration of priests of different religions at the cost of the pubic exchequers (both Central and State) and also other matters.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (scuwq${) (Information Commissioner) Authentic ated true copy (R, K. Rao) (wn.*. rn) (Dy. Registrar) Gc-qifl-s6) 0 I I -26 I 82598 / [email protected] ft+r+ / Date: 25.11 .2022 Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal I 775, Kuchalattushah, Dariba, ChandniChowk, Delhi -1 10006 COPIES TO:
PS ToMinister OfEce of the Hon'ble Union Iaw Minister:- For placing before the Hon'ble Union Law Minister ShastriBhawan, New Delhi-l I0001 for perusalpls.
Principal Secretary Cum Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Departrnent, Govemment of NCT of Delhi, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi- I10054.
Secretary to Hon'blelt.Govemor:- For placing before *re Hon'blelt. Govemor for
RajNiwas Marg, Delhi-l !0054 perusal pls.
PS To Hon'bleChief Minister:- For placing before the Hon'ble Chief Minister
Government of NCT of Delhi, for perusal please.
3rd floor, Delhi Secretariat, l.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
The Chief Secretary,
Govemment of NCT of Delhi,
5th floor, Delhi Secretariat I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-l10002.
Chairman,
WakIBoard, Delhi,
VikasBhawan-Il, 7th Floor, A-WinC,
Civil Lines, Delhi - 1 10054.
NON COMPLIANCE ORDER
Date of Non-Compliance Hearing : 03.05.2023
The Commission, vide order dated 25.11.2022, had directed the CPIO (Delhi Wakf Board) to re- examine the matter and fumish correct, complete and detailed information on point numbers, l, 3,5,6 and 12 ofthe RTI Application to the Appellant as per the provisions ofthe RTI Act 2005. The Commission also directed the CPIO (Delhi Wakf Board) to transfer the RTI Application on query numbers l,and 6 to 12 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 to the concemed deparmrents, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
Further the Commission directed CM offrce to provide information on query numbers 1 and 6 to 12 of the RTI Application, and also complete information with all related documents on honorariums being paid to Imams and others in mosques of Delhi which are not in the domain of Delhi Wakf Board if needed, by collecting it from the concemed departrnent/body of GNCTD u/s 5 (4) of the RTI Act 2005, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. All documents were to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act, 200s.
The Commission also directed the CPIO, DelhiWakf Board, to provide compensation of Rs 250001 to the Af'pellant keeping in view the mental agony he faced and man hours and resources he lost due to stonewalling of the information by DWB for almost nine months. The Commission had also taken note of the appellant's submission that he had also tried to ensure necessary action by directly writing to CM office and through PGMS & CPGRAMS portals.
The Appellant vide letters dated 30.01.2A3, filed non-compliance petitions before the Commission objecting to the replies fumished to him by the Respondents in compliance of the Commission's order dated 25.11 .2022. The Appellant contended that incomplete information has been provided to him by the CPIOs concerned. The appellant also brought to the notice of the Commission that Delhi Wakf Board did not pay compensation of rupees 25000 as was directed by the Commission in its order dated 25.1 1.2022.
The Comnission vide order dated 25.11.2022, decided to hold a hearing in the matter. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. SubhashChandra Agrawal. present in the bearing. Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Dy. Secretary, CMO, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, ASO, Mr. Haider Ali, Manager (HR), Delhi Wakf Board (DWB), Nazia, LDC, Ift. Arvind Kumar, SDM, Mr. Amit Kumar Yadav Jr. Asst., Mr. ManinderSngh SDM &Ivft. Derender Singh, S.O, present in hearing The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application wherein he had sought information about the salaries given to the Imams and helpers in Mosques of Delhi. He further submitted that file-notings provided by Delhi Wakf Board (DWB) are incomplete because these were only till 25.04.201,9 while the data provided by DWB is up to Financial Year 2020-21, and requested the Commission to direct DWB to provide the file notings till date rather than only tlll 25.04.2019. He also requested that details of amounts paid (and file notings) after the fiscal-year 2020-21 may also kindly be directed to be provided.
He fuither requested the Commission that DWB may also kindly be directed to transfer query- numbers (1) to (5) to concemed public authority responsible to provide salaries to knams and helpers in mosques of Delhi other than those under control of DWB under intimation to him. He also requested that the DWB may also kindly be directed to urgently provide compensation of rupees 25000 to him as directed in ClC-verdict dated 25.11.2022. He requested that if necessary, DWB may be directed to seek funds specially for the purpose from concerned public-authority providing frrnds to DWB enclosing therewith a copy of the ClC-verdict dated 25.11.2022.
Since officers of Department of Revenue (GNCTD) and Chief Minister's Office (CMO) during the ClC-heanng expressed theirignorance about public-authority providing salaries/funds for Imams and helpers in mosques of Delhi other than those under control of DWB, the Appellant requested that CPIO at CMO may kindly be directed to place the matter before Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi to ensure providing complete information as sought in different points of RTI application regarding payment of salaries to lmams and helpers in mosques of Delhi other than those under control of DWB. This was also because information sought was based on the news-report dated 23.0\.2019 of Zee News wherein it was mentioned "Apart from this, Kejiwal also announced a salary hike for imams of mosque that are oriside the domain of Delhi Walcf Board. It is for the rtrst time that salary expense of such mosques wottld be covered by d government body. Ihe imams of these mosques will be paid Rs. 14,000 per month while the helpers will get Rs. 12,000 per month. The announcements were mdde by the Delhi Chief Minister during an event organized by the Delhi Walcf Board' .
Mr. Syed Haider Ali, Manager (HR), Delhi Wakf Board (DWB), in response submitted that the Delhi Wakf Board is not at fault in the present case. He firther submitted that the Appellant had filed RTI with the Revenue Department wherein no First Appeal hearing took place; hence the burden should not be put on them to pay the compensation as DWB could have answered the queries if the First Appeal Hearing would have taken place. He also sincerely requested the Hon'ble Commission to waive off the order of compensation to be provided to the Appellant as the department is facing financial issues.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Dy. Secretary, Chief Minister Office, Delhi, (CMO) stated that there is no such information about the said announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi with them, and may be that the Revenue Departrnent might be having the desired information.
The Appellant further requested that in case Department of Revenue (GNCTD) including its Minority Affairs Division is not the public authority concemed in this regard, then the Department should categorically state so in writing. The Appellant drew attention of the Commission towards his long-pending First Appeal dated 1J.04.2O22 addressed to the Special CEO, DDMA at the offrce of Divisional Commissioner, Revenue department (HQ) GNCTD.
Mr. Maninder Singh, SDM, (HQ), stated that apart from the grants in aid given to the DWB for their functioning the Delhi govemment is not paying salaries to anyone. Hence, there is no information about the said pay of salaries with the department.
"nt DECISTON Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that this is a very serious matter of withholding the legitimate information and the non compliance of the Commission's order dated 25.11.2022.
Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO Mr. Syed Haider Ali, Manager (HR), Delhi Wakf Board, to provide the file notings till the date of RTI application i.e. 16.02.2022 rather than only till 25.04.2019. The Commission further directs that the data about salaries paid to lmams and others in mosques of Delhi under control of DWB (together with file-notings) may be provided for up to 16.02.2022 i.e. the date of RTI application rather than only up to 25.04.2019 within 15 days of receipt of this order. Further the Commission dfuects DWB to transfer query-numbers (1) to (5) of the RTI Application to concemed public authority responsible to provide salaries to Imams and helpers in mosques of Delhi other than those under control of DWB as per Section 6(3) of the RTI .
Act 2005, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission and the appellant.
The Commission further observes that despite the previous order of the Commission the compensation of Rs 25000/- has not been provided by the CPIO, DelhiWakf Board to the Appellant. Therefore keeping in view the mental agony the Appellant faced and man hours and resources he lost due to stonewalling of the information by DWB, the Commission directs the CPIO, DelhiWakf Board to pay compensation to the Appellant, and ifnecessary by writing letter regarding the same to the concemed public authority providing funds to DWB to release the amount ofcompensation to the Appellant specially for the purpose enclosing therewith a copy of the CIC- verdict dated 25.1'1.2022. A copy of the said request-letter to provide funds may also be forwarded to the Commission and the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order.
The Commission directs Departrnent of Revenue to file within 15 days of receipt of this order an aflidavit with the Commission mentioning that neither it provides salaries to Imams and others in mosques of Delhi which are not under control of DWB nor it has information regarding the public authority providing salaries to Imams and others in mosques of Delhi which are not under control of DWB. A copy of the allidavit may also be sent to the Appellant. The Commission directs concemed First Appellate' Authority at Deparftnent of Revenue to decide First'appeal dated 13.04.2022 addressed to the Special CEO, DDMA at the offrce of Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Department (HQ) GNCTD. This First Appeal should be decided 15 days ofreceipt ofthis order.
Since representatives of both CM office and Department of Revenue during the ClC-hearing expressed their ignorance about the public authority providing salaries to Imams and others in mosques of Delhi other than those under control of DWB, the Commission directs CPIO at CM Office to place the matter before Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi because news-report placed on record clearly indicates that such an announcement to pay salaries to Imams and others also in mosques of Delhi other than those under control of DWB was made by Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi. The CM Office is hereby directed to ensure thatClC-verdict dated 25.11.2022 is complied by all concemed public authorities under Government of NCT Delhi within 20 days of the receipt of this order.
Next date of hearing on the matter is at 3 pm on 0'1.07.2023 to ensure compliance of this order. If necessary in case of non-compliance, the Commission may use its powers available under section 18(3)(e) to srrnmon concemed ones to ensure complete compliance of ClC-verdict dated 25.11.2022, The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principle Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi for placing the same before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi.
The Commission directs its registry to seek information from Principle Secretary to Hon'ble Union Law Minister on action taken, if any, on recornmendations made in the ClC-verdict dated 25.11.2022 to lhe then Hon'ble Union Law Minister.
(Information Commissioner) Authentic ated true copy (ffidsFd) (R. K. Rao) (wn.*. rn) (Dy. Registrar) (uv-U+r+;
0 I l-26 1 82598 / [email protected] ft-qiq / Date: 22.05.2023 Copies to CPIO . Delhi Wakf Board, VikasBhawan-Il, 7th Floor, A-Wing, Civil Lines, Delhi - 1 10054 CPIO O/o Chief Minister Gort. oINCTDelhi, 3rd floor. Delhi Secretariat,l.P. Estate, New Delhi- l 10002 CPIO Revenue Department, Govemment of NCT of Delhi, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi- 1 10054.
Principal Secretary Cum Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Departrnent, Govemment of NCT of Delhi, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-l10054.
PS To Hon'bleChief Minister, For placing before the Hon'ble Chief Minister
Govemment of NCT of Delhi, for perusal please.
3rd floor, Delhi Secretariat, l.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
Chairman,
Delhi WakfBoard,
VikasBhawan-Il, 7th Floor, A-Wing,
Civil Lines, Deihi - I 10054.
PS ToHon'ble Union Law Minister
Ofiice of the Hon'ble Union I-aw Minister:-
ShastriBhawan, New Delhi-I 10001