Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Sud vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 9 January, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DIGDE/C/2022/617965
In the matter of
Anil Kumar Sud
... Complainant
VS
CPIO
Defense Estate Officer,
Pathankot Circle, Vill - Bharoli Kalan,
Pathankot - 145001.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/12/2021 CPIO replied on : 14/07/2022 First appeal filed on : 31/01/2022 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint filed on : 27/03/2022 Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023 Date of Decision : 09/01/2023 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC
Respondent: Vijay Kumar, SDO-I and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copy of the lease plan of properties identified below and affixed on the sale deed dated 24.11.1992 by the DEO, Pathankot for property no. 7 survey no. 95.
(i) North Survey no. 92 (vacant land) and survey no. 94 (House No. 13)
(ii) South Survey no. 96 and 97 (Cantonment Board Primary School)
(iii) East Surevy No.88 (Balun Bazar) 1
(iv) West Survey No.92 (vacant land) and post office (Gurudwara Road)
2. Provide copy of map and proposal submitted to the D.G.D.E office for the sanction of freehold case survey no. 95 property along with the note sheets and sanctioned map by D.G.D.E, Delhi office.
3. Provide copy of demarcation details carried out on 12.08.2021 manually along with the signatures of the attendees who were present on that day.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant vide his written submissions dated NIL submitted that through the present RTI application - DEOPK/R/E/21/00004 he had applied to the DEO Pathankot for certain documents and information that is a matter of record of the DEO Pathankot. He further submitted that the CPIO being the custodian of the information or the documents sought for is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information. He further submitted that the CPIO in order to evade his public duties has uploaded incomplete documents on the online system. The said reply has never been provided to the complainant and the reply of the CPIO mentions about certain enclosures. Such enclosures have never been provided to the complainant and the CPIO has not complied with the provisions of the RTI Act. He further pointed out that this has been done in a coordinated manner to deprive the complainant of the information that could be used by the complainant to defend the allegations of encroachment on the public land made by the colluding officers of the Department of Defence, MOE, Government of India. The onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified rests on the CPIO who denied the request and the CPIO has not provided any justifiable cause for the denial of the information to the complainant. Also, no enclosures have been received by the complainant. He further submitted that the basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make democracy work for the people in real sense and he being a senior citizen is representing this case in person. Therefore, he requested the CIC to excuse any procedural mistakes that he may have 2 committed in filing this appeal. He also submitted that he suffered irreparable loss and damage to the property for not receiving the information in a timely manner. He submitted that the CIC should also solicit the proof of delivery (registered post receipts) if the documents are claimed to have been supplied by the CPIO. CIC should investigate into the matter as to why the various departments of the Ministry of Defence are refusing the information solicited by the complainant to defend his legal rights. He summed up requesting that the CPIO may be directed to provide the information and also penal action be initiated as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 for denial of information.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 29.12.2022 submitted that as the information sought by the applicant is of vintage period and it took time to dig out the same from the office record, hence the information was delivered after the prescribed period to the applicant. As the information sought has been furnished to the applicant, he requested to condone the delay and close this complaint. The dispatch proof dated 20.07.2022 was enclosed with the submissions.
The complainant in his complaint dated 27.03.2022 requested to admit his joint appeal and complaint and inquire into the matters referred to by invoking its powers under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act, read with the procedure provided for in Rule 11 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 (RTI Rules) and summon the official documents containing the information specified in the instant RTI application from the custodian Respondent Public Authority or Respondent Public Authorities, as the case may be. He further requested that after summoning the official documents containing the information specified in the instant RTI application from the custodian Respondent Public Authority or Respondent Public Authorities, as the case may be, peruse the same as per the procedure provided under Rule 11 of the RTI Rules, for the purpose of giving directions to the custodian Respondent Public Authority or Respondent Public Authorities, as the case may be, to provide access to such information as is permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act in the form of access sought by the complainant in the instant RTI application, within a reasonable time limit.
He further requested to provide him an opportunity of being heard, impose penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act against the CPIOs of the respondent 3 public authorities or the concerned officers who did not gave replies to the instant RTI application; recommend for disciplinary action against the CPIO under section 20 (2) of the RTI Act to be commenced against the CPIO under the service rules applicable to CPIO. He also requested to issue appropriate directions for the disclosure of the information described in the instant RTI application by invoking its powers provided under Section 19(8)(a)(iii) of the RTI Act, invoke powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and direct the public authority to compensate him (Rupees One lakh) for damages done to the property no. 7 Survey no. 95 vide the order of the Estate Officer for the demolition of the skywalk, bridge situated on the property, invoke powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and direct the public authority to compensate (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the complainant for damages done to the reputation of the complainant (as a public representative) vide the order of the Estate Officer for the demolition of the skywalk, bridge situated on the property.
Observations:
The Commission after perusing the despatch proof could not evaluate whether the same contained enclosures or not. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the reply was sent though delayed. In case the enclosures were not provided the same should have been mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. However, he chose to mention the same in his recent written submissions and had not informed the Commission that an online reply was received. The Commission observed that the instant matter was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or due to any of the clauses as mentioned in Sec 18 (1) (a) to (f). Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the concerned CPIO is directed to ensure that the RTI applications are replied to on time in future. No further action is required as there is no justification for action against the CPIO nor for compensation.4
The CPIO Pathankot volunteered to resend the documents which were already forwarded on 20.07.2022 to the complainant.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
5