Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 31 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/C/2023/104211,
CIC/DDATY/C/2023/106126,
CIC/DDATY/C/2023/106127 &
CIC/DDATY/C/2023/104213
Akshay Kumar Malhotra ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
O/o Dy Director,
DDA, Horticulture Divion- X,
CSC Market, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi- 110033
2. PIO,
Delhi Development
Authority O/o Executive
Engineer, Horticulture Civil
Division No.5, Keshav
Puram, Delhi - 110035 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025
Date of Decision : 30.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant is
common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 24
1. CIC/DDATY/C/2023/104211
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.07.2022
CPIO replied on : 24.08.2022
First appeal filed on : 31.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.09.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2023
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.07.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to Estimates been prepared for various Works by HORTICULTURE-10 Division/DDA for the works to be done during the financial year 2022-2023. Every year Horticulture Division / HORTICULTURE-10 Division/DDA spend 10's/100's of crores of rupees of public money to maintain/new constructions etc. in various parks under their jurisdiction. Scope of work of contract issued to private contractors / amount spent / contracts given to private contractors for maintenance of such park etc etc (as there are various types of works which DDA carries out either under Legal contract or sometimes directly through private contractors, by themselves (DDA).
So, the public money paid to various contractors for creating new structure and / or for servicing/maintenance of existing infrastructure is a matter where larger public interest is involved in the form of proper and timely material / services given by the contractor, as per the terms of the agreement, so as to ensure that public money is spent judiciously and properly and to the best interest of the citizen of Delhi.
Important Facts The information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
So, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen, by putting it in public domain, by the Public Authority, in the normal course, so that citizen could see that information at their own from the sites where this Page 2 of 24 information is disseminated viz easily accessibility at the website of the public authority etc etc Important Facts about how CPIO is making all attempts to be non- transparent
1. The information requested by me in my RTI Application is a Public information and not private information related to me and/or any private information and thus all the information requested in my RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain suo-motu, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
2. And now, I am filing RTI Application to get the same piece of public information.
So, Public Authority don't make any information available suo-motu, as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
Information Requested
1. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of the List of SUMMARY (Dictionary meaning of Summary defined at end of this RTI) ALL Estimates been prepared for various Works by HORTICULTURE-10 Division/DDA for the works to be done during the financial year 2022- 2023, giving details of following:
S N Sh. Parksn Est Sta Name Te D Sti Stip Statu A Act Re
. a (Su ame/l im tus of nd at pul ulat s ct ual ma
N m bh ocatio ate as agenc er e ate ed comp u dat rks
o e ea n d on y/con A of d dat leted al e of , if
o d) Am 29. tracto m A dat e of /wor d co an
f ou 07. r ou w e dat k in at mpl y
w ntd 202 nt ar of e of progr e eti
o 2 in (R d sta co ess of on
rk res S) rt mpl st
pec eti ar
t of on t
pro
gre
ss
in
pro
ces
s
for
aw
Page 3 of 24
ard
ing
the
con
tra
ct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 14 15
3
(Please note that this is only an illustrative format which is given above and i am to be provided with all the above information (mentioned in all the columns of the above mentioned format), as it exists with DDA. I have just given an illustrative format, which means that all the information mentioned in the format is to be informed to me, in whatever form/format it is available with CPIO and which may be different than what I have illustrated above."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 24.08.2022 stating as under:
"In reference to above subject matter, no such compiled information in the desired format is available in this office. Hence, the same cannot be provided. However, you have full liberty to visit the office of undersigned for inspection of records available in any working day with prior intimation to this office."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28.09.2022, held as under:
"In the above mentioned appeal of Sh. Akshay Kumar Malhotra dated 31.08.2022, Appellant and PIO/Dy. Director, Hort. Divn. No.-X, DDA were called by this office vide letter dated 22.09.2022 before FAA/Director (Hort.) N/W, today. i.e. 28.00 2022 at 3:30 P.M., Sh. Kadu Ram Meena, PIO/Dy. Director, Hort. Divn. No.-X, DDA attended the hearing. However, Sh. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, Appellant did not attend the same. During the hearing, the PIO/Dy. Director, Hort. Divn. No.-X, DDA has submitted the reply of said appeal which was sent to Appellant vide letter No. F10(RTI)/Hort.X/DDA/2022-23/1007 dated 17.09.2022. The FAA is agreed with the said reply and ordered to supply the copy of reply dated 17.09.2022 to the Appellant. Now the appeal stands disposed of"
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 4 of 242. CIC/DDATY/C/2023/106126 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 24.08.2022 First appeal filed on : 31.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.09.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023 Information sought:
5. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to Various Works /Agreement Executed by HORTICULTURE-10/DDA during the financial year 2021-2022.
Every year Horticulture Division 10/ HORTICULTURE-10/DDA spend 10's/100's of crores of rupees of public money to maintain/new constructions etc. in various parks under their jurisdiction. Scope of work of contract issued to private contractors/amount spent / contracts given to private contractors for maintenance of such park etc etc (as there are various types of works which DDA carries out either under Legal contract or sometimes directly through private contractors, by themselves (DDA).
So, the public money paid to various contractors for creating new structure and / or for servicing / maintenance of existing infrastructure is a matter where larger public interest is involved in the form of proper and timely material / services given by the contractor, as per the terms of the agreement, so as to ensure that public money is spent judiciously and properly and to the best interest of the citizen of Delhi.
Important Facts The information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
So, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen, by putting it in public domain, by the Public Authority, in the normal course, so that citizen could see that information at their own from the sites where this Page 5 of 24 information is disseminated viz easily accessibility at the website of the public authority etc etc Important Facts about how CPIO is making all attempts to be non- transparent
1. The information requested by me in my RTI Application is a Public information and not private information related to me and / or any private information and thus all the information requested in my RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain suo-moto, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
2. And now, I am filing RTI Application to get the same piece of public information.
So, Public Authority don't make any information available suo-moto, as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
Information Requested
1. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of the List of SUMMARY (Dictionary meaning of Summary defined at end of this RTI) of ALL works/Agreements executed by HORTICULTURE-10/DDA during the financial year 2021-22 (in general terms the financial year is defined as year starting from 01st April every year and ending with 31st March in the succeeding year, but if DDA has some other dates of financial year then I am to be provided details of that financial year by clearly mentioning the From: Date/Month/Year to To: Date/Month/Year of the financial year followed by DDA) giving details of following:
S N Nam Est Te % Da Sti Sti A Act Run Statu Re
. at e of im nd bel te pul pul ct ual nin s as
N ur Agen at er ow/ of ate ate u dat g/fi com on
o e cy/co ed am abo a d d al e nal plete for
. of ntrac co ou ve w da dat d of pay d/wo del
w tor st( nt( ar te e at co me rk in ay
or Rs) Rs) de of of e mp nt prog /n
k d sta co o leti ma ress/ on
rt mp f on de not sta
leti st (Rs) yet rt/
on a start xxx
r ed/d x
Page 6 of 24
enie
d
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14
0
"
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 24.08.2022 stating as under:
"In reference to above subject matter, no such compiled information in the desired format is available in this office. Hence, the same cannot be provided. However, you have full liberty to visit the office of undersigned for inspection of records available in any working day with prior intimation to this office."
7. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28.09.2022, held as under:
"In the above mentioned appeal of Sh. Akshay Kumar Malhotra da.ed 31.08.2022, Appellant and PIO/Dy. Director, Hort. Divn. No.-X, DDA were called by this office vide letter dated 22.09.2022 before FAA/Director (Hort.) N/W, today. i.e. 28.09.2022 at 3:30 P.M., Sh. Kadu Ram Meena, P10/Dy. Director, Hort. Divn. No.-X, DDA attended the hearing. However, Sh. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, Appellant did not attend the same. During the hearing, the PIO/Dy. Director, Hort. Divn. No.-X, DDA has submitted the reply of said appeal which was sent to Appellant vide letter No. F10(RTI)/HorLX/DDA/22-23/1006 dated 17.09.2022. The FAA is agreed with the said reply and ordered to supply the copy of reply dated 17.09.2022 to the Appellant. Now the appeal stands disposed of."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
3. CIC/DDATY/C/2023/106127 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 08.08.2022 First appeal filed on : 18.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.09.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023 Page 7 of 24 Information sought:
9. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to Estimates been prepared for various Works by HCD-5/DDA for the works to be done during the financial year 2022-2023.
Every year Civil Division ND-5 / HCD-5/DDA spend 10's/100's of crores of rupees of public money to maintain/new constructions etc. in various parks under their jurisdiction. Scope of work of contract issued to private contractors / amount spent /contracts given to private contractors for maintenance of such park etc etc (as there are various types of works which DDA carries out either under Legal contract or sometimes directly through private contractors, by themselves (DDA).
So, the public money paid to various contractors for creating new structure and / or for servicing/maintenance of existing infrastructure is a matter where larger public interest is involved in the form of proper and timely material / services given by the contractor, as per the terms of the agreement, so as to ensure that public money is spent judiciously and properly and to the best interest of the citizen of Delhi.
Important Facts The information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
So, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen, by putting it in public domain, by the Public Authority, in the normal course, so that citizen could see that information at their own from the sites where this information is disseminated viz easily accessibility at the website of the public authority etc etc Important Facts about how CPIO is making all attempts to be non- transparent
1. The information requested by me in my RTI Application is a Public information and not private information related to me and / or any private information and thus all the information requested in my RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain Page 8 of 24 suo-moto, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
2. And now, I am filing RTI Application to get the same piece of public information.
So, Public Authority don't make any information available suo-moto, as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
Information Requested
1. Please inform me and provide me with the certified copies of the List of SUMMARY (Dictionary meaning of Summary defined at end of this RTI) of ALL Estimates been prepared for various Works by HCD-5/DDA for the works to be done during the financial year 2022-2023, giving details of following:
S N Sh. Parksn Est Sta Name Te D Sti Stip Statu A Act Re
. a (Su ame/l im tus of nd at pul ulat s ct ual ma
N m bh ocatio ate as agenc er e ate ed comp u dat rks
o e ea n d on y/con A of d dat leted al e of , if
o d) Am 29. tracto m A dat e of /wor d co an
f ou 07. r ou w e dat k in at mpl y
w ntd 202 nt ar of e of progr e eti
o 2 in (R d sta co ess of on
rk res S) rt mpl st
pec eti ar
t of on t
pro
gre
ss
in
pro
ces
s
for
aw
ard
ing
the
con
tra
ct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 14 15
3
Page 9 of 24
(Please note that this is only an illustrative format which is given above and I am to be provided with all the above information (mentioned in all the columns of the above mentioned format), as it exists with DDA.
I have just given an illustrative format, which means that all the information mentioned in the format is to be informed to me, in whatever form/format it is available with CPIO and which may be different than what I have illustrated above."
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 08.08.2022 stating as under:
"The information required by you in the desired format are not available. Hence, the same cannot be provided. However, you are full liberty to visit the Office for inspection of records available in any working day between 10.00AM to 05.00 PM with prior intimation to this Office"
11. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 07.09.2022, held as under:
"The hearing of Appeal was held in the office of undersigned on 07.09.2022 at 3:00 PM. The PIO was present during the hearing but the appellant was not present. During the hearing, PIO/EE/HCD-5 stated that no record is available in the format desired by the applicant. However he can visit the office of PIO/EE/HCD-5 for inspection of record in the available format within 15 days between 10 A.M to 5 P.M with prior intimation.
In view of above. The Appeal Stands Disposed off."
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
4. CIC/DDATY/C/2023/104213 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 02.09.2022 First appeal filed on : 07.09.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.09.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2023 Page 10 of 24 Information sought:
13. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.07.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to Civil Department in DDA, HCD-5 for getting information on contract awarded to M/s D.B. Infratech in respect of M/o parks, plantations trucks and others equipments for Hort. Wing. S.H.: P/F of Children Play Equipments for Larger and Smaller Green areas under Horticulture Division- X/NZ/DDA Agreement No.- 84/EE/ND-5/DDA/2018-19, 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY- PART-B ( Maintenance of Play Equipments) For the maintenance work been/being done for Children Pay Equipments in total 6 numbers of parks including Motey wala park, Shalimar bagh, Delhi-110088 Period for which information is requested is from 01.10.2021 till 26.07.2022 Intent of larger public interest Every year Civil Division ND-5 / HCD-5/DDA spend 10's/100's of crores of rupees of public money to maintain/new constructions etc. in various parks under their jurisdiction. Scope of work of contract issued to private contractors / amount spent /contracts given to private contractors for maintenance of such park etc etc (as there are various types of works which DDA carries out either under Legal contract or sometimes directly through private contractors, by themselves (DDA).
So, the public money paid to various contractors for creating new structure and / or for servicing / maintenance of existing infrastructure is a matter where larger public interest is involved in the form of proper and timely material / services given by the contractor, as per the terms of the agreement, so as to ensure that public money is spent judiciously and properly and to the best interest of the citizen of Delhi.
Important Facts The information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.Page 11 of 24
So, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen, by putting it in public domain, by the Public Authority, in the normal course, so that citizen could see that information at their own from the sites where this information is disseminated viz easily accessibility at the website of the public authority etc etc Important Facts about how CPIO is making all attempts to be non- transparent
1. The information requested by me in my RTI Application is a Public information and not private information related to me and/or any private information and thus all the information requested in my RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain suo-moto, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and hence violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
2. And now, I am filing RTI Application to get the same piece of public information.
So, Public Authority don't make any information available suo-moto, as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
Information in this RTI Application is related to contract awarded as per Agreement number 84/EE/ND-5/DDA/2018-19 and 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY-PART-B (Maintenance of Play Equipments) forming part of this contract awarded to M/s D.B. Infratec.
As per the Terms and Conditions (T&C) of the 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY- PART-B ( Maintenance of Play Equipments), which is forms part of this contract awarded, Please inform me on the following points, which shall be related to the said Contract for Schedule of Quantity-Part-B only and not otherwise. So please inform me on the following points:
1. As per clause 2 of the T&C, please inform me the periodicity of the visit of the person/technical staff of the agency(contractor) for the maintenance of these play equipments (even though T&C of the Schedule-B suggested it as a weekly visit, but please inform me the final periodicity fixed by Engineer-in-Charge or the suggested weekly visit was been finalized.Page 12 of 24
2. Please inform me the name, designation and address of the Engineer- in-Charge for the work to be done under Schedule of Quantity-Part-B of the contract.
3. Please inform me and provide me with the copy of the SOP and/or mechanism in place, as a measure of checks and controls, with DDA, to confirm and to verify that whether actually the person and technical staff visited the site during this periodicity or not.
4. Please provide me with ALL the copies of the visit reports (giving name of the person, date of visit and observation during visit etc etc) of these technical people of contractor during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park.
5. Please inform me the all the visits of DDA engineer during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park and the observations of the Engineer during all such visits.
6. Please inform me the (a) different dates of damages and (b) nature of damages, 10 these Children play Equipments, been observed by the technical people of contractor, during their visits, during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park.
7. Please inform me the actual dates of damages been repaired in these Children play Equipments for the damages which were been observed by the technical people of contractor, during their visits, during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park.
8. Please inform me the (a) different dates of damages and (b) nature of damages, to these Children play Equipments, been observed by the DDA Staff (including HCD-5 or Hort Div-10), during their visits, during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park.
9. Please inform me the actual dates of damages been repaired in these Children play Equipments for the damages which were been observed by the DDA Staff (including HCD-5 or Hort Div-10), during their visits, during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park. 10. Please inform me the (a) different dates of damages and (b) nature of damages, to these Children play Equipments, been reported and complained by the citizen/public, during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park Page 13 of 24
11. Please inform me the actual dates of damages been repaired in these Children play Equipments for the damages which were been reported and complained by the citizen/public, during the period from 01.10.2021 till date, in Motey wala park.
12. Plouse inform me the time period in hours/days during which the damages observed/reported/complained by public shall be repaired and rectified. Even though terms and conditions says that the children play equipments shall be in working position 24x7.
13. Please inform me and provide me with the complete details of the penalties levied and recovered from contractor in the present contract for the 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY-PART-B (Maintenance of Play Equipments). Please give the date wise and park wise details of all such penalties levied and recovered and also inform me the number of days for which Children Equipments were not repaired resulting which penalties were levied and recovered from contractor. Pease give the details (il park wise, (ii) date wise, (ii) giving numbers of days taken for repair of children equipments, (iv) penalty levied (Rs.), (v) penalty recovered (Rs.).
Contract says that a penalty of Rs 1000/- per day per site will be recovered from the agency.
14. Please inform me and provide me with the complete details of the penalties levied but not recovered from contractor in the present contract. Please give the date wise and park wise details of all such penalties levied but not recovered and also inform me the number of days for which Children Equipments were not repaired resulting which penalties were levied but not recovered from contractor. Pease give the details (i) park wise, (ii) date wise, (iii) giving numbers of days taken for repair of children equipments, (iv) penalty levied (Ra.), (V) penalty not recovered (Rs.), (vi) reason(s) for non recovery of penalty, (vii) name, designation and address of the person in DDA who waived off these penalties.
Contract says that a penalty of Rs 1000/- per day per site will be recovered from the agency.
15. I lodged a complaint of 2 numbers of damaged Swing Jhula children Equipment in Motey wala park, Shalimar bagh, Delhi. Two equipments are damaged one for inst 3-4 months and another for last 2 months, but when no repairing etc done them! lodged a complaint, along with the photo of the damaged jhula, vide CPORAM complaint number Page 14 of 24 i. DOURD/E/2022/12750 Dated 07.06.2022 and Complaint Appeal No. DOURD/C/A/22/0000094 Dated 19.07.2022, where Director-
Horticulture/DDA vide vide letter ref No. F10(17)22/DHNW/CPGRAM/DDA/1124 dt 15.07.2022 said that it would be corrected by 25.07.2022, but which is not even corrected till filing of this RTI Application ii DOURD/E/2022/15573 Dated 19.07.2022 The repairs not done till date of filing of this RTT Application. a. Please inform me the action taken on this complaint. b. Please inform me the actual date of repair to this jhula. c. Please inform me the penalty levied (Rs.) on contractor for this complaint and if penalty levied is less than Rs 1000/- per day from last 3- 4 months till actual date of repair then please inform me the reason for levying less penalty.
d. Please inform the penalty Rs. Actually been recovered from the contractor on this complaint along with date of recovery. e Please inform me the penalty levied but not recovered from the contractor on this complaint and the reason for not recovering the penalty.
16. As per clause 8 of the T&C of 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY-PART-B (Maintenance of Play Equipments), "Do's and Don't shall be displayed at every site', In this respect please provide me with the available document/ photos etc., in records of DDA, as an evidence that the Do's and Don't' are actually been on display at every site. But factually, I visit Motey wala park but there is no display of any Do's and Don'ts" in Motey wala park.
17. Please inform me and provide me with the copy of the SOP and/or mechanism in place, as a measure of checks and controls, with DDA, to confirm and to verify that these "Do's and Don'ts are actually on display at each and every site and which are been periodically verified by DDA.
18. As per clause 9 of the T&C of 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY PART B (Maintenance of Play Exquipments), "The agency will also display the contact no. of the person to be contacted in case of any emergency or complaint shall be displayed at every site', in this respect please provide me with the available document/ photos in records of DDA, as an evidence that the such display are actually been on made at every site.Page 15 of 24
But factually. I visit Motey wala park but there is no such display in Motey wala park.
19. Please inform me and provide me with the copy of the SOP and/or mechanism in place, as a measure of checks and controls, with DDA, in confirm and to verify that these display the contact no. of the person are actually on display at each and every site and which are been periodically verified.
20. As per clause 10 of the T&C of 'SCHEDULE OF QUANTITY-PART-B, please inform me and provide me with the copies of the 'Supplementary Agreement for the items to be executed under Purt-B of the Schedule of Quantity'
21. Please inform me the amount of Security Deposit received by DDA from the said contractor for this maintenance Contract Only and also inform that whether this security deposit money is still with DDA or is refunded back and/or adjusted against the penalties, if any. Please give complete information for such refund / adjustment of security deposit against the penalty etc."
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 02.09.2022 stating as under:
"It is submitted that this office is working with skeletal staff. Therefore, it will required disproportionate diversion of the resources of this office. Hence, as per section 7(9) of RTI Act 2005 no information can be provided by this office. However, you are requested to visit this office with prior intimation for inspection of specific record during office hours."
15. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 21.09.2022, held as under:
"The hearing of Appeal was held in the office of undersigned on 21.09.2022 at 3:15 PM. The PIO was present during the hearing but the appellant was not present. During the hearing, PIO/EE/HCD-5 stated that the required information has already been provided. However he can visit the office of PIO/EE/HCD-5 for inspection of record within 15 days between 10 AM to 5 PM with prior-intimation."Page 16 of 24
16. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
17. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeal and the Complaint on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Appellant/Complainant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri VD Meena, CPIO-cum-Deputy Director and Shri Pardeep Kumar, SSA, attended in person on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Shri Dunni Ram Meena, PIO-cum-EE, attended the hearing in person on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
18. The Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. He further stated that right to inspect the record is only available with the RTI Applicant and as per his understanding of the RTI Act, the Respondent cannot offer inspection to the RTI Applicant.
19. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Complainant in the instant RTI Applications are non-specific and voluminous in nature and its disclosure may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority in terms of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the said information is not available in the requisite format as sought by the Complainant in the RTI Applications. Despite this, the Complainant was requested to inspect the available record, specify the same and so that the relevant information can be provided. He added that the Respondent Public Authority has not denied information to the Complainant but instead tried to facilitate the dissemination of information sought by explaining the nature and status of the information in order to enable him to inspect and obtain the same under Section 2 (j)
(i) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 17 of 2420. A written submission has been received from Shri VD Meena, Deputy Director/Horticulture, vide letter dated 14.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Dear Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, This is in reference to your RTI application dated 27.07.2022, wherein you sought certified copies of the list of "Summary" (as per your definition) of all works/agreements executed by Horticulture-10, DDA, during the financial year 2022-23. Your request, as outlined, is being carefully reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and the following points are brought to your attention:
1. Availability of Information (Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005):
As per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information you have requested is not categorically denied, but it must be noted that this information is not immediately available in the requested format. In compliance with this section, we have offered to make this information accessible to you if you choose to visit the DDA office during working days to retrieve the same. Our department will provide full assistance during your visit. This is the most feasible way to facilitate access to the required information, as per the operational constraints and nature of the data requested.
2. Absence During the Initial Hearing:
Your absence during the first hearing, delayed the process of providing a satisfactory and timely response. The department had made all necessary arrangements to facilitate the provision of relevant information, and your non- appearance has contributed to an additional delay. We would like to remind you that as per the provisions of the Act, any failure to attend hearings may lead to delays in the resolution of the RTI request.
3. Non-Applicability to Personal Interest (Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005):
The requested information pertains to works/agreements executed by DDA with other contractors and is unrelated to your personal interests or any public interest that could justify its disclosure. As per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, personal data related to third parties, which is not in the public domain or linked to public interest, cannot be disclosed. Since the information you seek concerns third-party contractors, it does not meet the threshold of public interest required to override the privacy exemption under this provision.
4. Lack of Format and Resource Constraints.
Your request for information in a specific format is noted. However, the data you have requested is not available in the format you have indicated. The records of works/agreements are spread across various documents and are not centrally consolidated. Compiling and formatting this information in the precise manner you have requested would be time-consuming, resource-intensive, and would require a substantial amount of manpower, which is currently unavailable due to staffing limitations. The department is not obliged to furnish Page 18 of 24 information in a format that is not readily available and requires disproportionate effort. The information will be made available in the most accessible form possible, but it may not be in the specific format you have outlined.
5. Administrative and Operational Constraints (Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005):
It must be emphasized that the administrative constraints of the department, including insufficient ministerial staff and the dispersed nature of the data, make it extraordinarily difficult to produce the requested information in the specified format. As per Section 7(9), the Act recognizes that information should not be disclosed if it requires disproportionate effort or resources. The department has limited staff, and assembling the data as per your request would divert significant resources, causing undue strain on departmental functions. Therefore, we respectfully state that the requested information cannot be provided in the format you demand.
6. Public Interest and Excessive Effort (Section 7(9) and Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005):
Additionally, we must bring to your attention that the balance between public interest and the effort involved in retrieving and compiling this data does not favor the provision of such information in the manner you requested. The RTI Act, under Section 7(9), allows for denial of information if the request imposes an excessive burden on the public authority. In this case, the extensive efforts required to gather and compile this information, especially in the requested format, far outweigh the potential public interest that may be served by its disclosure.
7. Consideration of Public Interest (Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005):
Lastly, in accordance with Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, we also consider the sensitivity of the information you are seeking. The public interest is better served by withholding certain details that could affect the integrity of contractual agreements with third parties. Disclosure of this information could lead to potential misuse or compromise of ongoing contractual processes, which outweighs the presumed benefit of disclosure in your case. Conclusion While the department remains committed to providing access to information in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005, it is important to note that the requested information is not only difficult to compile in the format specified but also raises significant concerns under the provisions of the RTI Act regarding:
Third-party confidentiality (Section 8(1)(j)): Confidential/personal information of a third party can only be shared if there is a larger public interest involved. public interest (Section 8(1)(d)): In the past, similar types of requests have been misused, which has caused damage to the department's reputation and contractual interests.
Undue administrative burden (Section 7(9)): The department also informs that compiling such information on a large scale is not only technically and administratively challenging, but it may also adversely affect the functioning of the department.Page 19 of 24
1) The department respectfully requests that your esteemed office takes these factors into account when reviewing this matter and considers the constraints mentioned above before issuing any further directions.
ii) We remain open to providing the applicant with the available information in a reasonable and accessible format, but we strongly recommend that the applicant revises the scope and format of his request.
We trust that the CIC will make a fair and reasoned decision in line with the legal and operational limitations faced by the department. Request/Prayer/ for Consideration from Dy. Registrar/CIC on dt. 18.07.2025 (The below matter pertain only C.I.C) Respectfully submit the following points before the Hon'ble Commission for kind consideration during the hearing in the matter under reference:
1. That the department has already extended full cooperation and assistance to the applicant in compliance with the RTI Act. However, to further facilitate transparency, it is submitted that the applicant may, at his own convenience, visit the office personally and obtain the desired information by giving at least one day's prior intimation. The office shall ensure full support and access to the relevant records accordingly.
2. We trust that the CIC will make a fair and reasoned decision in line with the legal and operational limitations faced by the department. If it is necessary for you to provide this information to them, it is considered necessary. And in the event the applicant is unable to visit the office personally, the department most respectfully requests the Hon'ble Commission to kindly grant adequate and reasonable time to gather, compile, and present the information in the specific format sought by the applicant, which involves considerable collation and verification of records.
3. The department reiterates its unwavering commitment to comply fully with the directions/orders issued by the Hon'ble Commission, now and in the future, as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
21. A written submission has been received from Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 14.07.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"This is in reference to the CIC hearing to be held on 18/07/2025 vide CIC letter no.: CIC/DDATY/C/2023/104213 dated 25.06.2025. The records available in this office related to your RTI application ref. no.: RTI/495/04/2022-23/R dated 26.07.2022 is enclosed with this letter."
Decision:
22. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required Page 20 of 24 to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily
23. forbidden."
24. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. 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 show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of mala fide 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 Page 21 of 24 destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
25. The fact of the case reveals that the information sought by the Complainant in the instant RTI Applications are voluminous in nature and its disclosure may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority in terms of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. It is noted that the Respondent Public Authority has not denied information to the Complainant but instead tried to facilitate the dissemination of information sought by explaining the nature and status of the information in order to enable him to inspect the relevant records and obtain the same under Section 2 (j) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is represented hereunder:
"2(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 the right to
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;"
26. The Commission finds the interpretation of the Complainant of the RTI Act that right to inspect the record is only available with the RTI Applicant and the Respondent cannot offer inspection to the RTI Applicant is legally untenable. The absence of a specific provision in the RTI Act empowering the Respondent Public Authority to offer inspection of records can indeed be seen as a gap in the regulatory framework rather than an implicit restriction. By recognizing the gap, efforts can be made to facilitate access to information through inspection of record where the information sought is not precise and is voluminous in nature and scattered and its disclosure may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority in terms of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission would like to rely upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others [Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011] dated 09.08.20211, wherein is has been held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and Page 22 of 24 all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
27. Further in case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India versus Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors., in LPA 24/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 07.01.2016, has held as under:
"xxx
15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant"Page 23 of 24
28. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the stand of the Respondent Public Authority and concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action on the Respondent public authority under the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in these cases.
The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 24 of 24 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)