Central Information Commission
Surender Singh Bisht vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DDATY/A/2017/162187-BJ
Mr. Surender Singh Bisht
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Nodal Officer, RTI Cell
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.06.2019
Date of Decision : 13.06.2019
Date of RTI application 08.04.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 22.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.09.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding transferring of flat to a co-allottee, time required for DDA for transferring the flat after submitting the papers to DDA, number of days/ months/ years required for DDA to issue any kind of document to Allottee/ Co- Allottee on his written request after submitting all documents/ payments to DD as per DDA policy and necessary instruction of LG/ Chairman of DDA.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Surender Singh Bisht;
Respondent: Mr. Rohit Mathur, Asst. Dir., Mr. M. P. Singh, Asst. Dir. and Mr. Chandu Shekhar, Asst. Dir.;Page 1 of 4
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no information had been provided to him. Only on receipt of the notice of hearing from the Commission, he had been given a point-wise reply vide letter dated 07.06.2019 a copy of which was submitted to the Commission also. In its reply, the Respondent explained that initially the RTI application was not received by them and only on transfer from another Division, it was received in their Section which was subsequently transferred to the relevant Section on 03.10.2017. On being queried about the knowledge of Section 6 (3) / 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, he feigned ignorance. It was however submitted by the officials of DDA that certain procedural formalities were to be fulfilled to enable them to decide the said matter.
Nonetheless, neither the CPIO nor the FAA responded in this case. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Asst. Dir (Coordn)-II/PIO, DDA) dated 07.06.2019 wherein a point wise response against the queries raised in the RTI application was provided. However, on re-ascertaining the correctness of this statement, the Respondent subsequently informed the Commission through a written submission by Coordination (Housing), DDA dated 12.06.2019 wherein it was submitted that he had erroneously mentioned that "there is no specific timeline for Mutation has been prescribed as per DDA policy". However, it was to clarify that as per the DDA Citizen's Charter at Page No. 7, it has been mentioned that "timeframe for transfer/mutation of flats is within 60 days of submission of all documents". The revised reply had however not been furnished to the Appellant and he was directed to do the same forthwith.
The Commission felt that 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"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."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
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."
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:
Page 2 of 4"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.
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.
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, the Commission directs the Vice-Chairman, DDA to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to examine the delay in dealing with the RTI application within the stipulated time period and the consequent First Appeal filed by the Appellant and submit his report on the factual status within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission and ensure that a suitable reply is furnished to the Appellant.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(S. S. Rohilla) (एस.एस. रो ह ला)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 13.06.2019
Page 3 of 4
Copy to:
1. Mr. Tarun Kapoor, Vice Chairman, DDA, A-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 (expressing dissatisfaction over the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission advises to review the whole mechanism of dealing with RTI applications and evolve a robust and effective system of replying to such applications within the stipulated time period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.) Page 4 of 4