Central Information Commission
Harish Kumar vs Mcd on 17 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001898 F.No.CIC/YA/A/2015/000325
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/000327 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/000623
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001777 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001778
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001779 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001780
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001781 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001782
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001783 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001784
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001785 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001786
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001787 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001788
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001790 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001791
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001792 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001793
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001794 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001795
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001796 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001797
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001863 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001864
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001865 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001866
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001867 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001868
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001869 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001870
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001871 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001872
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001873 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001874
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001875 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001899
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001900 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001901
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001902 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2015/001759
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001760 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001761
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001762 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001763
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001827 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001828
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001829 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001830
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001831 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001831
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001832 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001833
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001834 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001835
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001836 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001837
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001838 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001981
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001982 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001983
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001984 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001985
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001986
1
Date of Hearing : 20.10.2016, 18.11.2016 &
24.03.2016
Date of Interim Decision : 20.10.2016, 18.11.2016,
Date of Final Decision : 12.05.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Harish Kumar, Delhi
Respondent : CPIO, North Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Delhi
Through:
Shri A.K. Dixit, CPIO/EE(B)
Shri Mahipal Singh, JE(B)
Sadar Paharganj Zone/ North MCD
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Case No. RTI filed CPIO reply First FAA order 2nd appeal
on appeal filed on
filed
1898 02.12.2014 23.12.2014 11.01.2015 03.02.2015 21.07.2015
&
09.02.2015
0058 26.06.2015 No reply 21.09.2015 15.10.2015 30.12.2015
0325 18.07.2014 No reply 01.09.2014 16.09.2014 09.02.2015
0327 18.07.2014 No reply 01.09.2014 16.09.2014 09.02.2015
0623 12.09.2014 20.11.2014 28.10.2014 13.11.2014 09.02.2015
1777 17.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1778 16.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1779 16.02.2015 No reply 17.04.2015 30.04.2015 06.07.2015
1780 16.02.2015 No reply 17.04.2015 30.04.2015 06.07.2015
1781 19.02.2015 11.03.2015 17.04.2015 30.04.2015 06.07.2015
1782 18.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1783 18.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1784 17.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1785 17.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1786 18.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1787 18.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1788 16.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1790 16.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1791 16.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 06.07.2015
25.03.2015
2
1792 17.12.2014 No reply 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1793 22.12.2014 29.05.2015 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1794 16.02.2015 13.04.2015 17.04.2015 30.04.2015 06.07.2015
1795 22.12.2014 29.05.2015 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 06.07.2015
1796 02.12.2014 No reply 02.02.2015 02.03.2015 06.07.2015
1797 01.12.2014 No reply 02.02.2015 02.03.2015 06.07.2015
1863 08.01.2015 29.05.2015 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
1864 06.01.2015 29.05.2015 16.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
1865 09.12.2014 29.05.2015 13.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
1866 09.12.2014 29.05.2015 13.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
1867 09.12.2014 18.02.2015 09.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
&
29.05.2015
1868 09.12.2014 29.05.2015 09.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
1869 03.12.2014 23.12.2014 12.01.2015 03.02.2015 13.07.2015
1870 03.12.2014 24.02.2015 02.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
&
29.05.2015
1871 27.11.2014 No reply 02.02.2015 02.03.2015 13.07.2015
1872 26.11.2014 17.02.2015 02.02.2015 02.03.2015 13.07.2015
1873 26.11.2014 21.01.2015 13.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
&
29.05.2015
1874 25.11.2014 21.01.2015 13.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
&
29.05.2015
1875 25.11.2014 21.02.2015 13.02.2015 25.03.2015 13.07.2015
1899 01.12.2014 23.12.2014 12.01.2015 03.02.2015 21.07.2015
1900 28.11.2014 19.12.2014 12.01.2015 03.02.2015 21.07.2015
1901 25.11.2014 26.12.2014 12.01.2015 03.02.2015 21.07.2015
1902 28.11.2014 23.12.2014 12.01.2015 03.02.2015 21.07.2015
1759 23.11.2015 No reply 19.01.2016 09.02.2016 23.05.2016
1760 19.11.2015 No reply 18.01.2016 09.02.2016 23.05.2016
1761 23.11.2015 No reply 19.01.2016 09.02.2016 23.05.2016
1762 23.11.2015 No reply 19.01.2016 09.02.2016 23.05.2016
1763 19.11.2015 No reply 18.01.2016 09.02.2016 23.05.2016
1827 14.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1828 11.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1829 11.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1830 08.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1831 08.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1832 07.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1833 07.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1834 07.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1835 07.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1836 07.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
3
1837 10.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1838 10.12.2015 No reply 08.02.2016 04.03.2016 06.06.2016
1981 04.01.2016 No reply 16.02.2016 14.03.2016 14.06.2016
&
30.03.2016
1982 29.12.2015 No reply 16.02.2016 14.03.2016 14.06.2016
&
30.03.2016
1983 04.01.2016 No reply 16.02.2016 14.03.2016 14.06.2016
&
30.03.2016
1984 24.11.2015 No reply 16.02.2016 14.03.2016 14.06.2016
&
30.03.2016
1985 24.11.2015 No reply 16.02.2016 14.03.2016 14.06.2016
&
30.03.2016
1986 15.12.2015 No reply 16.02.2016. 14.03.2016 14.06.2016
&
30.03.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant has preferred the present batch of appeals seeking to collate data relating to various facets of unauthorized construction. He has preferred as many as 65 appeals before the Commission. Vide a series of RTI applications; he had sought details mainly on:
Demolition action undertaken in SP Zone.
Booking of unauthorized constructions & notices issued. Copies/ Inspection of Construction watch register, Misalband register of all wards of SP Zone.
Regularization proceedings relating to buildings wherein construction plans were not sanctioned.
Copies of his own complaints against unauthorized construction.
Details of construction undertaken by over a dozen Commercial properties (Hotels).
Action taken by some officers in nature of performance audit.4
2. Many of the appeals are similar in nature and for the purposes of effective hearing & adjudication, they are clubbed together. Each batch is dealt with separately hereinafter.
3. Appeals involving Unauthorized Construction & incidental information: [ 21 Appeals] In the present batch of appeals, the appellant sought a huge amount of data relating to proceedings under the DMC Act, primarily concerning unauthorized construction, making diverse queries in each of his RTI Application. Some of such RTI applications are reproduced hereinafter to indicate the nature of information sought under the present batch:
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001827, the RTI application dated 14.12.2015 reads as:
1 . Please provide the certified copy of all u/c files with FIR, First Show Cause, Second Show Cause Notice along with reply and submission of owner/ occupier in which demolition order has not been passed by the Building Department S.P. Zone till date during the period of 01.01.2013 to 14.12.2015.
a) 130/B/UC/SPZ/13 dt. 22.04.2013 regarding B-1373 Shastri Nagar Delhi.
b) 360/B/UC/SPZ/13 dated 18.09.2013 regarding 245, Vivekanad Puri, Delhi.
c) .....................
d) .....................
e) .....................
f) .....................
g) .....................
h) .....................
i) .....................
j) .....................5
k) 120/B/UC/SPZ/14 dated 28.04.2014 regarding 8733/14-B, Shidipura, Delhi etc.
2. Please provide the certified copy of the list with u/c file no. & date, property no. in which the FIR, First Show Cause, Second Show Cause Notice along with reply and submission of owner/ occupier in which demolition order has not been passed by the Building Department S.P. Zone till date during the period of 01.01.2013 to 14.12.2015.
3. Please provide the name and designation with their tenure of the Engineer/ officials who are responsible for not passing the demolition order with in prescribed time limit in respect of all u/c files which pertains to query no. 1.
Identical information was sought in CIC/YA/A/2016/001837 vide RTI application dated 10.12.2015 and in CIC/YA/A/2016001836 vide RTI dated 07.12.2015.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001829, the appellant sought the following information vide RTI application dated 11.12.2015:
1. How many properties have been booked by Building Department S.P. Zone against deviation and u/c in Sanction Building Plan during the period of 01.01.2013 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015 in all wards of S.P. Zone? E.g. 39/B/UC/SPZ/2014 dated 30.01.2014?
2. Please provide the certified copy of FIR, First Show Cause, Second Show Cause Notice, Demolition order with official proceeding in respect of query no. 1
3. How many u/c files against deviation in Sanction Building Plan have been pending in the name of J.E.s, A.E.s of the concerned wards for issuance of demolition order from 01.01.2013 to 11.12.2015 in respect of query no. 1?6
4. How many Sanction Building Plan has been rejected and revoked by the Building Dept. S.P. Zone regarding violation of terms and conditions mentioned in sanctioned letter serial no. 2 to 10.
5. Please provide the certified copy of sanction letter, rejection letter, and revocation letter with official proceedings in respect of query no. 4.
6. Please provide the certified copy of Construction Watching Register with complete detail of deviation which are exist in the constructed building against Sanction Building Plan, which are maintained by building department in all wards S.P. Zone during the period of 01.01.2013 to 11.12.2015.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001828, the appellant sought the following information vide RTI application dated 11.12.2015:
1. How many notices have been issued for Dangerous Buildings u/s 348 of DMC Act by the Building Department S.P. Zone during the period of 01.04.2014 to till date i.e.11.12.2015 in all wards of S.P. Zone?
2. Please provide the certified copy of all notices issues by the Building Department S.P. Zone in respect of query No.1.
3. How many building has been demolished by the owner/occupier as well as Building Department S.P. Zone after issuance of notice u/s 348 of DMC Act during the period of 01.04.2014 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015 in all wards of S.P. Zone? Please provide the owner /occupier name, property no., alongwith demolition report.7
4. How many properties have been booked against unauthorized construction at on-going stage during the period of 01.01.2015 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015.
5. Please provide the certified copy of FIR, First Show Cause Notice, Second Show Cause Notice alongwith demolition order in respect of query No.4.
6. How many u/c files have been pending in the name of J.E.‟s, AE‟s of the concerned wards for issuance of demolition order from 01.04.2014 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015 in respect of query No.5?
7. Please provide the certified copy of FIR, First Show Cause Notice, Second Show Cause Notice alongwith demolition order in respect of query No.6.
8. How many earlier booked properties (were) again booked against unauthorized construction during the period of 01.04.2014 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015?
9. Please provide the certified copy of FIR, First Show Cause Notice, Second Show Cause Notice alongwith demolition order in respect of query No.8
10. How many u/c files have been pending in the name of J.E.‟s, AE‟s of the concerned wards for issuance of demolition order from 01.04.2014 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015 in respect of query No.9?
11. Please provide the certified copy of FIR, First Show Cause Notice, Second Show Cause Notice alongwith demolition order in respect of query No.9.
12. How many properties have newly constructed after declaration of danger as well as demolished by the owner/occupier/department during the period of 01.04.2014 to till date i.e. 11.12.2015 in all 8 wards of S.P. Zone? Please provide the owner/occupier name, property number alongwith status report.
In CIC/YA/A/2015/001902, the appellant sought the following information vide RTI application dated 28.11.2014:
1. Please provide the numerical abstract report in respect of regularization of properties, which has received, regularized, rejected, pending in Building Department/SP Zone during the period of 01-04-
2012 to till date i.e. 28-11-2014.
2. Please provide the certified copy of regularization letter, regularization rejection letter in respect of query No. 1.
3. Please provide the certified copy of step-wise complete procedure for revocation of the regularized properties in Building Department/SP Zone/North DMC.
4. Please provide the ward wise numerical abstract report in respect of Ward No. 73,75,76,85,87,88,89 & 90 of pending regularization files of building department S.P. Zone in the name of AE's i.e. Shri Ravinder Kumar Khari, Shri Jai Parkash Singh, and Shri Vinod Bansal, since 01- 01-2014 to till today i.e. 28-11-2014.
5. Please provide the step wise complete procedure of property regularization which are applicable in Building Department/SP Zone, North DMC as per BBL 1983, MPD-2021 in certified copy and also provide the copy of office order/circular issued by the Building (HQ)/MCD/North DMC in this regard.
6. How much maximum time be taken for the regularization of property in Building Department/SP Zone as per norms of BBL 1983, MPD 2021and office order/circular issued by the Building (HQ)/MCD/North DMC in this regard.
97. Please provide the ward wise numerical abstract report in respect of Ward No. 73,75,76,85,87,88,89 & 90 of pending sanction budding plan files of building department S.P. Zone in the name of AE's i.e. Shri Ravinder Kumar Khari and Shri Vinod Bansal, from last six months i.e. 01-01-2014 to till today i.e. 28.11.2014.
8. Please provide the certified copy of missal-band register of building department S.P. Zone during the period of 01-01-2014 to 28-11-2014.
9. Please provide the numerical abstract report in respect of revocation of regularized properties, which has been revoked by the Building Department/SP Zone during the period of 01-01-2012 to till date i.e. 28- 11-2014.
10. Please provide the certified copy of revocation letter issued by the building department S.P. Zone in respect of query No. 9.
11. How many private persons are working in Building Department /SPZ who has engaged by the officer/ officials without any approval of the higher authority of North-DMC? Please provide the name and father's name of the private person.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001763, the appellant sought following data vide RTI application data 19.11.2015:
1. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 73 Shastri Nagar, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no.
D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
102. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 75 Kishan Ganj, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
3. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 76 Depty Ganj, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
4. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 85 Idgah Road, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
5. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 87 Ram Nagar, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed 11 building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
6. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 88 Qussabpura, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
7. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 89 Pahar Ganj, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
8. Please provide the certified copy of construction watching register of Ward 90 Modal Basti, which was step wise filed up by the area Junior Engineer‟s (Building) in reference of constructed building as per sanctioned building plan during the period of 11.06.20144 to 19.11.2015 in compliance of circular no. D/476//Addl. Cm(E)/2001 dated 20.08.2001 issued by the then 12 Commissioner/ MCD Sh. S.P. Aggarwal and orders of Delhi High Court vide C.M. No. 1238/2007 and 239/2007 in W.P. (C) No. 4582/2003 ?
Having highlighted the essence and purport of few RTI applications, the rest are being discussed briefly, for the sake of brevity inasmuch as the same queries are repeated in many appeals.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001762, vide RTI application dated 24.11.2015 the appellant sought copies of correspondence exchanged between Executive Engineer (B) with Sub- Registrar regarding non registration of properties alongwith copies of all letters written by EE(B) to the BSES requesting disconnection of electricity supply etc. on 5 points. The CPIO did not reply and the FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001761, vide RTI application dated 23.11.2015 the appellant sought numeric data on instances of unauthorized construction in S.P. Zone and reasons for inaction etc. besides copies of all files (FIR, Show Cause Notices, Demolition orders issued, ATR) & departmental proceedings thereon. The CPIO did not reply and the FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days. In CIC/YA/A/2016/001838, the appellant sought copies of all building sealing files maintained in Building Department, SP Zone alongwith file notings thereon besides other incidental information on 23 points. In CIC/YA/A/2016/001981, the appellant sought details of properties, names of owners or occupiers wherein building plans were sanctioned from 01.01.2014 onwards and complete details of processing of each sanction application for online/ offline applications etc. on 16 points. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001797, the appellant sought details of persons who occupied buildings without obtaining completion certificate from 01.04.2012 to 01.12.2014, no. of notices issued under u/s 346 of DMC Act, details of violators of Section 337(4) of DMC Act, details of fine collected under the penal provisions etc. on 10 points. The CPIO did not reply. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 10 days.
13In CIC/YA/A/2015/001796, the appellant sought certified copies of index of record maintained by Building Department and status of compliance of Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act. He also sought url details of locating the aforesaid information through website besides multifaceted information on the record maintained & uploaded on internet by building department S.P. Zone under 09 points.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001982, the appellant sought numerical data as well as copies of all online sanctioned building plans as approved by Building Department, S.P. Zone besides seeking multifaceted information on copies of action initiated for violation of u/s 337(4) etc. under 19 points. The CPIO did not reply. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001986, the appellant sought divergent information on sanctioning, regularization, revised sanction plan, penal actions initiated under DMC Act etc. against specifically mentioned files of Building Dept/ SP Zone, under 12 points. The CPIO did not reply. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001830, the appellant sought numerical data as well as copies of all files relating to prosecution initiated under DMC Act, as maintained by S.P. Zone from 01.01.2015 to 08.12.2015 under 22 points. The CPIO did not reply. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001869, vide RTI application dated 05.12.2014, the appellant sought numeric data on instances of unauthorized construction in S.P. Zone, copies of Dak registers, Vigilance Dak register & police complaint register etc on 7 points. The CPIO replied as follows:
"Information sought by the applicant through this point is Voluminous and also the period of 12 months which is also voluminous in nature which will definitely divert the available resources of this office. Hence cannot be provided."14
However, the FAA by way of a „non reasoned order‟ directed the CPIO to furnish reply within 15 days. The FAO reads as:
"I have gone through the appeal related to RTI application seeking information and found that the PIO did not furnish reply to the appellant till date. PIO is directed to furnish the reply to the appellant within 15 days and also warned to be careful in future in furnishing the information to every applicant within stipulated time frame"
___________________________________________________________________________ In CIC/YA/A/2015/000325 & CIC/YA/A/2015/000327 vide two distinct, but similar RTI applications dated 21.07.2014, the appellant sought multifaceted information w.r.t. the complete procedure & data of regularization of unauthorizedly built properties in S.P. Zone alongwith ward wise reports etc. In addition, he also sought details of pending regularization files with concerned officers.
Decision [CIC/YA/A/2016/001827, CIC/YA/A/2016/001837, CIC/YA/A/2016/001836, CIC/YA/A/2016/001829, CIC/YA/A/2016/001828, CIC/YA/A/2015/001902, CIC/YA/A/2016/001763 , CIC/YA/A/2016/001762, CIC/YA/A/2016/001761, CIC/YA/A/2016/001838, CIC/YA/A/2016/001981, CIC/YA/A/2015/001797, CIC/YA/A/2015/001796, CIC/YA/A/2016/001982, CIC/YA/A/2016/001986, CIC/YA/A/2016/001830, CIC/YA/A/2016/001869, CIC/YA/A/2015/000327 CIC/YA/A/2015/000325 ]:
All the present second appeals seek voluminous information. In fact, each one of them contains diverse queries thus widening the arch of information sought. For instance, in CIC/YA/A/2016/001827 the appellant seeks information about 12 buildings and related to them every possible paper w.r.t. FIR, Show causes, replies, notices for a three year period. In addition, he has also sought to link up files with the concerned engineers & officials. Further, he seeks information from these files about those engineers responsible for not passing demolition orders in time. It is clear that this RTI 15 application can alone will take a number of man hours for the respondent to ferret out the necessary details. In another one(1829), he wants information on booking of unauthorized buildings in all wards of S.P. Zone for three years alongwith copies of all u/c files with every paper, show cause, second show cause, demolition order. He similarly wants all the u/c files against deviation in sanctioned building plan alongwith the name of concerned J.E.s & A.E.s. He further seeks the list of plans rejected/ sanctioned. All the aforesaid information is required by him for three years. There are other similar RTI applications in the above lot which also seek this kind of huge information. It is obvious that the appellant is out to overawe the authority with his demands which while complying will give them no time to do their daily tasks. It also appears to be a targeted move to list out certain properties and link them with certain officers from a mountain of data.
Stumped by his innumerable queries in each application, some of his RTI applications were not replied to at all by the CPIO. The Commission observes that the First Appellate Authority, being a senior officer of the department, ought to have examined the wide purport of the RTI queries. A bare perusal of all the RTI applications would imply the vastness of each query and the resources which would be consumed to answer such queries. The FAA completely failed even to grasp the basic issue to be adjudicated and passed non speaking orders directing CPIO to furnish information. The FAA did not even remark that some of the information sought was already available on the website. The FAA failed to foresee if it was possible at all, that this huge amount of information could ever be made available without compromising with the time devoted to the routine tasks of building department.
In the considered opinion of the Commission, the RTI queries under reference, if answered in the manner desired by the appellant shall invariably lead to considerable strain on resources of PIO. No useful purpose or public interest would be served by putting the public authority to duress 16 in the foregoing context. No further action is required in this batch of appeals which are hereby dismissed.
4. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001898, the appellant vide RTI application dated 02.12.2014 sought information under 8 points regarding 477 demolition orders passed by the Building Department, S.P. Zone during the period of 01.01.2013 & 25.07.2014. CPIO vide letter dated 23.12.2014 furnished information on point nos. 1, 2,3,4,5 & 8. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 03.02.2015 directed the CPIO to furnish the complete reply with all requisite documents to the appellant within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO the appellant approached the Commission. In CIC/YA/A/2016/000058 the appellant vide RTI application dated 26.06.2015 sought information 13 points regarding number of demolition orders passed by the Building Department, City Zone against unauthorized construction during the period of 01.04.2014 to 26.06.2015. CPIO did not respond to the RTI application. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 15.10.2015 directed the CPIO to furnish complete information to the appellant within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO the appellant approached the Commission.
Decision: [CIC/YA/A/2015/001898 & CIC/YA/A/2016/000058] Both the above second appeals relate to information sought on demolition orders. The appellant has sought information on very possible related information on the 477 demolition orders passed. After the CPIO‟s reply, the FAA without applying his mind merely passed a non-speaking order directing the CPIO to furnish the information. The Commission finds some of the queries as most impractical while some bordering on the ludicrous, like for example:- 'The list of property which has been cosmetically demolished'.
One of the queries seeks property wise list of unauthorised construction file issued to concerned JEs with details of number of time demolition was 17 attempted during a certain period. In some cases he has asked for even proof of demolition. The commission is unable to comprehend the nature of information sought by the appellant. It is clear that the information regarding booking is available online on MCD website. What public interest is served in providing every possible document related to the 477 demolition orders to the appellant could not be explained by him. The appellant refused to focus his queries. The appellate authority again without applying his mind passed orders for furnishing the information. The information asked for is neither understood nor available in the desired format. Besides, its a mindless exercise to gather every possible document connected to 477 demolition orders and provide it to an appellant who has not established any public interest for this work, which will completely divert the resources of the public authority in accomplishing the task. Accordingly the appellate orders in both the cases are set aside and no further action needs to be taken for the part of Commission.
5. Information and Action Taken Report upon his Complaints & Representations: [14 Appeals] In the present batch of appeals, the appellant sought copies of his own representations primarily highlighting various instances of alleged unauthorized construction, details of processing of such representations/ complaints alongwith multifaceted information thereto viz. file notings, details of demolition orders passes etc. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001867, CIC/YA/A/2015/001871 & CIC/YA/A/2015/001873, the appellant sought copy of his own representation dated 08.08.2014 made against unauthorized constructions in ward no. 89 of Paharganj and incidental information on 13 points. The CPIO replied and furnished information as available on record. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to furnish revised reply within 10 days. However, as per the available record, the FAO remained non complied. Similarly, in CIC/YA/A/2015/001865, the 18 appellant sought similar information regarding his complaint dated 27.07.2013. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001795, the appellant sought similar information regarding his complaint dated 25.06.2013. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001863, the appellant sought copy of his own representation dated 11.12.2013 & action taken thereon alongwith details of sanctioned building plans by Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal, A.E. etc. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001864, the appellant sought action taken report his representation dated 27.05.2013 directed against violation of building norms in all wards of SP Zone. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001870, the appellant copy of his own complaints & reminders addressed against various Lodging/ Guest Houses and sought action taken thereon. The CPIO furnished information as available on record. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001866, the appellant sought details of reports regarding survey of lodging houses/ Guest houses which was conducted upon his complaint dated 23.07.2013. Besides this, the appellant sought complete notings of file wherein his complaints & reminders were processed alongwith action taken report on as many as 7 points. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001899, the appellant sought copy of letter issued by Vigilance Department relating to non initiation of action against 477 nos. of unauthorized properties within S.P. Zone alongwith all file notings relating to its processing and action taken report thereon & all copies of all statutory notices issued etc. under 12 points. The CPIO furnished information in part, as available on record. In CIC/YA/A/2015/1872, the appellant sought copy of his own representation against alleged instances of wrong regularization of buildings bearing No. 8726-29, Block No. 5, DB Gupta Road alongwith metadata on the aforesaid complaint. The CPIO informed the appellant regarding unavailability of the representation in question and furnished reply accordingly.
In CIC/YA/A/2015/001793 the appellant vide RTI application 22.12.2014 sought copy of his representation regarding alleged gross irregularities and violation of sanctioned building plan. CPIO replied 19 on 29.05.2015. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 25.03.2016 to furnish information to the appellant within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO the appellant approached the Commission.
In CIC/YA/A/2015/001874, the appellant sought copy of letter no. D-824/DC/SPZ/2014 dated 28.10.2014 regarding survey of lodging & guest house, payment of conversion charges etc. Besides this, he sought details of action taken thereon in form of all file notings & action taken report alongwith multifaceted information on 16 points. The CPIO intimated the appellant regarding non availability of original complaint on record and replied accordingly. The FAA directed the CPIO to search the records and furnish information accordingly.
In CIC/YA/A/2015/001794, the appellant sought copy of his representation alongwith all annexures, made on the issue of loss of revenue on account of non payment of conversion & parking charges by Hotels. He also sought entire file notings of the file wherein the aforesaid representation was processed and action taken report thereon. The CPIO replied and furnished information on all points and supplied all related documents. The only grievance of the appellant put forth by appellant before the FAA was that the annexures attached to his representation were not furnished by the CPIO.
Decision:
[ CIC/YA/A/2015/001867, CIC/YA/A/2015/001871, CIC/YA/A/2015/001873, CIC/YA/A/2015/00186 CIC/YA/A/2015/001795 CIC/YA/A/2015/001863 CIC/YA/A/2015/001864 CIC/YA/A/2015/001870 CIC/YA/A/2015/001866 CIC/YA/A/2015/001899 CIC/YA/A/2015/001872 CIC/YA/A/2015/001793 CIC/YA/A/2015/001874 CIC/YA/A/2015/001794] A common thread runs through the batch of present appeals. In all the cases, the appellant has first made certain complaints/ representations, 20 primarily against instances of unauthorized construction. Thereafter, an attempt has been made by the appellant to monitor status of each of his complaint through a distinct RTI application. Not only has he sought certified copies of his own representations, but also all related information regarding processing of each one of them was also asked for. The practice of lodging numerous complaints/ representations and following them up them arose before this Commission in Amarjeet Singh Vs. CPIO, East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported as MANU/CI/0086/2017. Relevant portions depicting the factual matrix and decision thereon are reproduced hereinafter:
In all the present appeals, the appellant made a representation thereby bringing the various instances of unauthorized construction in the knowledge of Deputy Commissioners of the respective respondent public authority. These representations are brought on record by the respondent. Each of them is a mere replica of the other, except for the description of property. The appellant follows up each such representation by seeking action taken report thereon, through an RTI application. As a consequence, the appellant has made a total of 201 applications before the CPIOs of respective civic bodies of Delhi, wherefrom the present appeals emanate.
..............................
The right to information is a cherished & formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry. The RTI tool is meant to be use diligently. Though the legislature has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the Right to seek Information, but the same is inherent. As the old age wisdom suggests, excess of anything is bad. The preamble & the relevant part of the object of the RTI Act is reproduced hereinafter:
to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
[Emphasis supplied] Thus, in the collective wisdom of legislature, the expression "practical regime" was employed to act as a guiding light while 21 reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying object beneath its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercise with responsibility. Reckless exercise of right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. In the facts of the present appeals, the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc is not in consonance with the object of the statute.
The facts involved in Amarjeet Singh (supra) and the present batch of appeals are no different. Humongous amount of information has been sought, which is not readily available with the public authority. Each RTI application made herein seeks information on myriad issues. Collation of such multifaceted information would invariably disproportionately divert the meagre resources of the respondent department. In addition, the „opportunity cost‟ of satisfying the need for a huge amount of information of the appellant, shall be expenditure of considerable time & energy of public servants who could have done some meaningful work instead.
6. In The Public Information Officer Vs. The Central Information Commission [MANU/TN/1618/2014], a division bench of Madras High Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of repeated & bulk RTI queries. The Madras HC in its observations on a writ petition predicated upon the decision of CIC to allow huge amount of information in response to a series of RTI applications, stated as follows:
30. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following the same under the RTI Act.
Having found that the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it 22 would be against the larger public interest the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.
[Emphasis added] In wake of the foregoing discussion, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further direction in the present appeals which are hereby dismissed.
7. Appeals involving performance audit of various officers of S.P. Zone:
In the present batch of appeals, the appellant made various RTI applications seeking details of official acts performed by various officers of SP Zone.
To appreciate the nature of queries made in the present batch of appeals, the RTI application from appeal no. CIC/YA/A/2015/001780 is reproduced hereinafter:
1. How many sanctioned building plans have been approved with the approval of Town Planning Department North DMC by Sh.
Vinod Kumar Bansal as Assistant Engineer for SBP from charge assign by him to till date 16.02.2015.
2. Please provide the certified copy of sanctioned letter with official file noting in respect of query no. 1.
3. How many sanctioned building plan have been approved without clarification / approval from Town Planning North DMC by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bansal as Assistant Engineer for SBP from charge assign by him to till date 16.02.2015.
4. Please provide certified copy of sanctioned letter with official file noting in respect of query no. 3.
235. How many sanctioned building plan file have been rejected by Sh Vinod Kumar Bansal as Assistant Engineer for SBP from charge assign by him to till date 16.02.2015.
6. Please provide the certified copy of rejection letter with official file noting in respect of query no. 5.
7. How many sanctioned building plan files are pending in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar Bansal as Assistant Engineer for SBP from charge assign by him to till date 16.02.2015.
8. Please provide the certified copy of rejection letter with official file noting in respect of query no. 7 as on 16.02.2015.
9. Please provide the certified copy of all office order issued by the Executive Engineer (Building) SPZ and S.E./ SPZ regarding charge assign to Sh. Vinod Bansal AE/B, SPZ & other JEs & AEs of building department of SP Zone from 01.01.2014 to 16.02.2015.
Identical and repetitive quires relating to Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal, AE(B)/ SP Zone were made in appeal no. CIC/YA/A/2016/001760, In CIC/YA/A/2016/000476, the appellant sought the following details:
1. How many officers/officials have been suspended by Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, IAS/AGMU-1989, Commissioner North - DMC during the period of 01.04.2012 to till date i.e. 26.06.2015? Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of suspended officers/officials of category A,B&C.
2. How many officers/officials have been reinstated by Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, IAS/AGMU-1989, Commissioner North - DMC during the period of 01.04.2012 to till date i.e. 26.06.2015? Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of reinstated officers/officials of category A,B&C. 24
3. How many officers/officials have been exonerated by Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, IAS/AGMU-1989, Commissioner North - DMC during the period of 01.04.2012 to till date i.e. 26.06.2015? Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of exonerated officers/officials of category A,B&C.
4. How many officers/officials have been penalized by Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, IAS/AGMU-1989, Commissioner North - DMC during the period of 01.04.2012 to till date i.e. 26.06.2015? Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of penalised officers/officials of category A,B&C.
5. How many RDA cases/police case are pending in Vigilance Department, North DMC during the e period of 01.04.2012 to till date i.e. 26.06.2015? Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of pending RDA cases/police cases of category A,B,C & D officers/officials.
6. How many RDA cases/police cases were handed over by Vigilance Department, of erstwhile MCD to Vigilance Department, North DMC upto 31.03.2012. Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of pending RDA cases/police cases of category A,B,C & D officers/officials.
7. How many charge sheets have been issued by the Vigilance Department, North DMC to the officers/officials of North DMC during the period of 01.04.2012 to till date i.e. 26.06.2015? Please provide the year wise numerical abstract report with detail of chargesheet issued to the officers/officials of category A,B&C.
8. Please provide the schedule time limit of vigilance department, North DMC for conducting departmental enquiry and investigation in 25 compliance of circular No.000/VGL/18 dated 23rd May,2000, Govt. of India Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi in certified copy.
............. ................... ............................
26. Please prove the certified copy of the manual with their function and duties of vigilance department, North DMC as on 26.06.2015.
27. All the information in respect of query No.1 to 26 should be uploaded on the department website at public domain as per DOPT office memorandum No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013.
All other appeals in the present batch of appeals seek similar information w.r.t. other officers. For instance, in CIC/YA/A/2015/001781 the appellant has sought details regarding Shri R.S. Meena, Dy. Commissioner on similar lines. In CIC/YA/A/2016/001983, information relating to Sh. Siya Ram Meena, EE(B)/SPZ was sought. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001779 & CIC/YA/A/2016/001834, information relating to Sh. Ravinder Kumar Khari, AE(B)/SPZ was sought on identical lines.
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001832 the appellant sought multifaceted queries were made to evaluate performance of one Shri Raj Kumar Verma, A.E.(B)/SPZ. Identical information was sought regarding Shri Jai Prakash Singh, A.E.(B)/SPZ in appeal no.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001833 In CIC/YA/A/2015/001781 & CIC/YA/A/2016/001984 information regarding total no. of notices issued by Dy. Commissioner/ SP Zone was sought.
Decision: [ CIC/YA/A/2015/001780 CIC/YA/A/2016/001760
CIC/YA/A/2016/000476 CIC/YA/A/2015/001781
26
CIC/YA/A/2016/001983 CIC/YA/A/2015/001779
CIC/YA/A/2016/001834 CIC/YA/A/2016/001832
CIC/YA/A/2016/001833 CIC/YA/A/2015/001781
CIC/YA/A/2016/001984]
The present appeals emanate from RTI applications which seek to conduct a comprehensive performance audit of some officers of respondent public authority. Apart from asking for their performance report w.r.t. number of sanctioned plans, booking, demolition etc., He has also sought detailed information regarding disciplinary action initiated against them. The appellant has not indicated any reason for making such targeted queries. The intent behind all present RTI application is clear. It is not a secret that the officers posted in the building department of Municipal authorities carry out the thankless job of checking unauthorized construction. The information, which the appellant has sought, amounts to generation of „a private Performance Appraisal Report‟. It seems that the appellant has mistakenly assumed the role of „reviewing authority‟.
There is an inbuilt mechanism for checking underperforming officers & lauding the achievers. Making a private catalogue of performance of few officers, that too, at the cost of the routine work of public authority is wholly unjustified. Had the appellant been genuinely aggrieved with any acts or omissions of the officers in question, appropriate remedy would have been to approach higher authorities or seek information through focussed queries. However, making such a large number of RTI queries seeking huge information have an adverse impact on the performance of public servants and this practice needs to be curbed.
In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. [MANU/SC/0816/2012] the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the information relating to departmental 27 action against an employee is essentially a matter between the employee concerned & the employer and thus, warrants privacy until larger public interest outweighs cause of privacy. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:
12. The Petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third Respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third Respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son.
The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third Respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the present appeals are found sans merit and dismissed accordingly.
8. Appeals involving Commercial Properties/ Hotels: (13 Appeals) In the following bunch of appeals, the appellant sought copies of sealing files w.r.t to violation of building norms, details of sanctioning 28 of building plans, orders of sealing & desealing, details of any FIR lodged, details of prosecution action initiated against various Hotels situated at Paharganj. A list of second appeals alongwith corresponding Hotels/commercial properties is appended below.
Appeal No. Property
CIC/YA/A/2015/001778 Hotel Toto International Deluxe
CIC/YA/A/2015/001792 Hotel New King Deluxe
CIC/YA/A/2015/001784 Lord‟s Hotel
CIC/YA/A/2015/001785 Sharma Guest House
CIC/YA/A/2015/001786 Hotel Karan Palace
CIC/YA/A/2015/001787 Hotel Star Vila
CIC/YA/A/2015/001788 Hotel Sky View
CIC/YA/A/2015/001790 Hotel Shivam
CIC/YA/A/2015/001791 Hotel Priyanka International
CIC/YA/A/2015/001783 Hotel India International
CIC/YA/A/2015/001777 Hotel Kailash Guest House
CIC/YA/A/2015/001782 Hotel Shivlok Palace
In all the aforesaid all second appeals, the CPIO did not reply to the RTI Application. The first appellate authority, however, directed the CPIO to furnish information to the appellant within 10 days.
In CIC/YA/A/2015/001875, the appellant sought copy of his own representation against violation of norms relating to commercial properties/ hotels in SP Zone and information regarding to processing of the aforesaid complaint alongwith incidental information under 15 points. The CPIO informed the appellant about the non traceability of the complaint in question and furnished reply accordingly.
Decision:
29This batch of above 13 appeals relate to information sought qua guest houses & hotels situated in S.P. Zone. In each case, the appellant wants to have copies of sealing/ de-sealing order, FIRs, regularization proceedings, conversion charges etc. This is a huge amount of information, which the respondents have not replied to. The appellant usually seeks metadata of unauthorized construction. The manner in which the appellant seeks all and sundry information regarding a series of unauthorized constructions and then selects a few 'commercial properties & hotels' for targeting is nothing but an abuse of Right to Information.
To put an end to such innumerable queries by the busy bees and public alike, the Commission recommends that information regarding statutory clearances granted by MCD w.r.t. each Hotel/Guest House be posted on the website. In addition their status w.r.t. unauthorized construction also be placed in public domain from the booking stage to demolition.
9. Appeals involving information w.r.t. DCM Flatted Factories, Bara Hindu Rao Complex:
In CIC/YA/A/2016/001759, the appellant sought copy of his own representation dated 01.07.2015 originally addressed to Addl. Commissioner (Revenue, North DMC) seeking rejection of Completion application of „B‟ Block of DCM Flatted Factory Complex. In addition, the appellant sought action taken report & related documents under 09 points. The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days. In CIC/YA/A/2015/000623, the appellant sought copy of inspection report alongwith all file notings & correspondence relating to Block B of DCM Flatted Factories Complex and information relating statutory action initiated against other properties within SP Zone. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001901, the appellant sought copy of his own representation dated 05.09.2014 addressed to Executive Engineer (B), SP Zone seeking rejection of Completion application of „B‟ Block of 30 DCM Flatted Factory Complex. The CPIO informed the appellant that his representation in question was still under examination & furnished a point wise reply. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001900, the appellant sought information regarding action taken upon a letter by Vigilance department concerning DCM flatted factories. The CPIO denied information being third party information. The FAA directed the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days, however, as per the record made available to the Commission, the FAO was not complied with. In CIC/YA/A/2015/001868, the appellant sought certified copy of his own representation dated 04.08.2014 & supporting annexures regarding violations in revised layout & building plans of Group Housing Residential Complex, DCM Ltd. alongwith all file notings, correspondences made in the aforesaid context. The CPIO did not reply. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish reply within 15 days.
Decision: [ CIC/YA/A/2016/001759, CIC/YA/A/2015/000623 CIC/YA/A/2015/001901, CIC/YA/A/2015/001900, CIC/YA/A/2015/001868] The present batch of appeals emanate from RTI applications seeking multifaceted information w.r.t. DCM Flatted Factories. In past, the Commission has adjudicated upon various appeals by the appellant wherein the subject matter of information was identical to the present batch of appeals. Similar queries of the appellant formed part of appeals bearing no. CIC/YA/A/2014/002449; CIC/DS/A/2013/000385- YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/000115-YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/000116-YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/000117-YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/000136-YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/000114-YA, CIC/DS/A/2013/000124- YACIC/DS/A/2013/000028-YA which were adjudicated by this bench.
Thus, the present appeals satisfy all the essentials to invoke the principle of res judicata & constructive res judicata in few instances.
Accordingly, the present appeals are barred by law and dismissed accordingly.
3110. Having adjudicated each appeal on merit, the Commission intends to dwell on certain issues emerging from the present appeals. Issues such as repetitive RTI requests, use of RTI as a tool for targeting individuals, making queries seeking humongous information etc. call for observation of the Commission.
11. Bulk RTI queries: The Right to Information is a much cherished right. However, contrary to the popular public perception, it is not an absolute right. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions, enumerated specifically as well as inherently in the RTI Act. The RTI Act is enacted in pursuit of a „practical‟ regime of flow of information. A well informed citizenry is a prerequisite for achievement of such practical regime. Every aspect of governance & executive action is bound to have its own impact/fallout, for which there exists Constitutional as well as statutory means of grievance redressal. A citizen who perceives to have been wronged by any organ or instrumentality of Government has a right to seek redressal. However, a few people have taken upon themselves to use the Right to Information for settling personal scores with the public authority by making repeated queries asking for information of wide amplitude and width. Unbounded energy coupled with a biased mind using the Right to know can only clog the system rather than setting things right. Making incessant RTI queries in the garb of „public interest‟ is an evolving practice amongst a few, who have understood the RTI Act in the wrong perspective. It would be in common good if the champions of this right, exercise 'Self Restraint' and do not exercise the right to information in such an unfettered and irresponsible manner.
As many as 43 RTI applications of the appellant were not replied to by the CPIO. On 18.11.2016, while hearing the batch of appeals preferred by Mr. Harish Kumar, this Commission passed the following interim order:
In terms of the interim order of this Commission dated 20.10.2016, the present appeals are taken up today. Both the parties are present and 32 heard. Shri A.K. Dixit, present CPIO states that due to heavy office workload the respective RTI applications whereof the present appeals emanate could not be replied. He requests for some time to check the records and draw replies to all the unreplied RTI applications. The appellant consents to the same.
The Commission is of considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by deciding the appeals without ascertaining the respective stand of parties. At the joint request of the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit reply on all the unanswered RTI applications with an advance copy to the appellant by 15.12.2016. The appellant may file a rejoinder thereto by 23.12.2016 with a copy to the CPIO.
Upon a query from the Commission as to why as many as 43 RTI applications remained unanswered by the CPIO despite the specific directions of FAA, the CPIO states that one Shri S.R. Meena, the then CPIO may offer suitable explanation for the prima facie lapse. He places before the Commission a statement of respective tenures of CPIOs of Building Department, Sadar Paharganj Zone from 2014 till day. .......
Consequently, it has been reported by the respondent CPIO/ Sadar Paharganj Zone that reply has been furnished in all the RTI applications which remained unanswered earlier. Considering the bulk of RTI applications, the Commission condones the delay occasioned in furnishing reply by the CPIO. The appellant has suffered no loss due to the delay in receipt of information.
The Commission is in receipt of the following submission from the CPIO, SP Zone, North DMC. They are reproduced hereinafter:
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BLDG.) SADAR PAHAR GANJ ZONE 33 02.03.2017 To, Central Information Commission Sub: Information regarding expenditure incurred on providing information to Shri Harish Kumar With reference to above I hereby inform your good self that 65 No of appeal (list) filed in CIC. We have already provided 1200 No. of papers to applicant for of Numbers of RTI application and amended reply of 22 numbers of RTI applications. We have already informed your goodself that we have given dates for inspection of record. He attended the office but did not mark attendance. 2ndly we are working on 60% of sanctioned strength & Financial crunch.
So due to type of RTI application, we have to divert our all resources. We have appraised senior officer for shortage of staff regularly (copy attached) but no additional staff was provide we have spent 2 months more than Rs. 9 lac. However we have given approx expenditure 1 lac in earlier letter for the specific person employed for this purpose only.
I hereby request your good self to above appeals in view of facts as we are giving of details of RTI applications filed by Sh. Harish Kumar month wise as no public interest is served which is basic essence of RTI Act.
He is using black mailing tractics to harass the Deptt in the name of not providing information under RTI Act Sd/-
Executive Engineer (Bldg.) Sadar Paharganj Zone The aforesaid submission made by the respondent PIO bears testimony to the observation that unbounded exercise of a right can be counterproductive to the underlying idea behind the right.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P.Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically 34 mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
.......
4. Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the prayers in the writ petition are nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent. In fact, even two days ago, this Court had dealt with a writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P. (C) 784/2014 wherein equally wide information had been asked for under the RTI Act.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still. The Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, has held as under:-
62. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the Governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act, that is, Section 8 of the Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of the RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which 35 harmonises the two objects of the Act, while interpreting Section 8 and the other provisions of the Act.
[Emphasis Added is Ours] ..................................
6. After all disproportionate diversion of limited resources to Directorate General, Defence Estates' office would also take its toll on the Ministry of Defence. The Supreme Court in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, MANU/SC/1006/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 781 has held as under:-
....... The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.
(emphasis supplied) Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen."
[Emphasis added is ours] Similarly, while deciding CIC/AT/A/2008/00097, the Commission held that:
answering the elaborate and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic, imposes heavy cost on the public authority and tends to divert its resources, which brings it within the scope of section 7(9) of RTI Act.36
In Anil Dutt Sharma v. CPIO, EDMC & Ors., the Commission summarized the position w.r.t. insatiable demand of information by an information seeker as follows:
33. "Upon a careful perusal of each RTI application filed by the appellant, the Commission finds them answered by the respondents, given their capacity and resource constraints. Since the queries made by the appellants span across large area and range from 2010 to 2015 in some of the cases, the Commission finds the exercise of appellant as nothing short of „metadata mining‟. Though, the Right to Information Act as understood in popular parlance does not enjoin an information seeker to specify his / her object of seeking information; however no right is unbounded.
34. Having heard the averment from both sides, the Commission notes that the appellant while articulating his views on the working of the MCD has not provided any new information. The working of the MCD in countering unauthorized constrictions has been commented upon adversely by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, High Court and Public Grievances Commission and even this bench of the Commission. This however, still does not give unfettered right to the appellant to bombard the public authority with so many RTI applications seeking humungous information which would necessarily divert the attention of the public authorities from their daily work. It has been observed by the Commission that in some cases it would be well nigh impossible to reply at all to such queries. The RTI regime is not meant to satisfy the insatiable demands of one individual, which would detract the public authority completely from discharging its normal functions."
12. First Appellate Authority: While adjudicating these spate of appeals, the Commission noticed a common thread running through all of them, ie.
the virtual abdication of the role by the FAA in all such cases. The RTI Act 37 has provided for a robust appellate mechanism. In any common law country or the statutory framework of India, the „right to appeal‟ is not absolute; except in the case of Right to Information. A person can exercise his remedy of first appeal as well as second appeal, as a matter of right without any restrictions. Nowhere in any statute, such a right exists. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes for second appeals in civil disputes if it involves „a substantial question of law.‟ It implies that a dispute is buried with finality upon pronouncement of verdict at first appellate stage. Second appeal is matter of judicial discretion and no litigant can claim it as matter of right. However, in sharp contrast, the legislature did not put a similar embargo on proceedings under the RTI Act, 2005. Section 19 of the RTI Act obligates the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission to receive and adjudicate upon the second appeal. The only plausible reason for the legislature to have enacted such, is to afford greater protection to an information seeker.
The legislature conceptualized & foresaw the role of First appellate authority as a quasi judicial authority within each public authority. The role of FAA is critical since a senior officer of the organization usually shoulders this responsibility. As such, he is in a much better position to understand the finer technical nuances of information retention & dissemination besides exercising superior administrative control in line of hierarchy of the organization. The status conferred upon the FAA is that of a judge, who is supposed to decide first appeals in a judicious manner in observance of principles of natural justice. However, in experience of the Commission, most of the officers discharging functions of FAA fail to live up the situation. Either they work as a typical employee of the organization thereby towing the line and concurring with CPIOs or allowing disclosure of huge amount of information without due application of mind and without even due consideration to the CPIO‟s version and provisions of the Act. Both the situations are inimical to the smooth functioning of the RTI Act. In either case, a second appeal seems inevitable. The saying "If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem"- summarizes the position of 38 FAA. Unfortunately, the failure of first line of appellate mechanism has been the main reason for unusual high number of second appeals. A number of times, the Commission in its decisions has commented adversely on the role of the FAA but no action appears to have been taken to sensitize, chastise or caution the FAAs. Let a copy of this order be marked to the Commissioners EDMC/SDMC/North DMC and Chairman New Delhi Municipal Council to designate only such officers as FAAs who are well versed with the provisions of the RTI Act. It is also a dire necessity to organize training sessions for the FAAs separately. The Secretariat of this Commission shall respond favourably, if asked for any assistance or guidance in this regard.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Commission reiterates its earlier observation that the queries are repetitive and seek to dig out humungous amount of data. Many queries are found to be ludicrous & hypothetical. Some are clearly aimed at ferreting out every possible information about individual officers which not only would instil fear but also nurture an attitude of apathy and further inaction in them. This will defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act. The Commission deems the whole exercise as futile and ill-conceived by the appellant, which has not only wasted precious time of the Commission but also occasioned expending of considerable public resources. The Commission cannot be a mute spectator in this situation. While the Commission is duty bound to cater to the genuine needs of the litigants; any attempt to clog the system of with such a barrage of appeals should be thwarted.
The appellant has wrongly understood the Right to Information as an unfettered right to seek information. Could the same be allowed in name of public interest? Is it not in Public interest that public servants may be allowed to work with single minded devotion on their core job rather than wasting time in satisfying an unquestionable thirst of „information‟ of few individuals ? Would it be in Public interest to subject public servants to an 39 avalanche of queries which would divert them from their main duties? Public interest has varying dimensions and the Commission is left with no doubt to hold in the present context, that rejection of such RTI queries is in public interest. As observed by this bench in Anil Dutt Sharma Vs CPIO, EDMC & ors., "the Right to Information is not meant to satisfy the insatiable demands of one individual to the detriment of all others, which would detract the public authority completely from discharging its normal functions."
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 40 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer 41