Central Information Commission
Diwan Singh Mahar vs Delhi Development Authority on 2 June, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2019/118044
Diwan Singh Mahar अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi Development Authority ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Dy. Director (CS) & Nodal CPIO
Co-operative Society C-III,
2nd Floor, Vikas Sadadn, INA
New Delhi-110023
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30-07-2018 FA : 19-09-2018 SA : 18-04-2019
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 21-12-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), DDA, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Please intimate the total amount of ground rent pending surplus with DDA relating to the society paid by them;
(ii) Please intimate the amount of ground rent to be paid by society for the FY-18-19;
(iii) Please intimate the total amount to be refundable back to Society after adjusting the ground rent for FY-18-19.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.09.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The response of FAA is not on record. He filed a second appeal u/Section Page 1 of 3 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 30.07.2018 till date.
Interim Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the appellant and after perusal of records, observes that there is nothing on record which shows that any reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 30.07.2018. Further, the respondent was not present in the hearing to contest the second appeal of the appellant. This shows callous behavior on the part of the respondent public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO, Dy. Director (CS) and Nodal CPIO to show-cause in writing the reasons that as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for not giving reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 30.07.2018 and for not attending the hearing before the Commission, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. The respondent is further directed to give reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 30.07.2018 as per the documents available on record, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix hearing in the matter after 15 days. Fresh notice of hearing will be issued to the parties.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Page 2 of 3
Adjunct Proceedings-I
Date of (Interim) Hearing : 26.04.2022
Date of (Interim) Decision : 28.04.2022
• Written submission has been received from Nodal PIO, DDA, vide letter dated 18.01.2021, as under:
Page 3 of 3• Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o. AD (CS), DDA, vide letter dated 18.01.2021, as under:
• PIO, O/o. A.D. (GH), DDA, furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 27.04.2022, as under:Page 4 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Nodal PIO, present.
Written submission has been received from Nodal PIO, DDA, vide letter dated 18.01.2021, for perusal before the Commission and duly taken on record. He submitted that the instant notice for hearing, dated 21.12.2020, before the Commission was never received by the O/o. Nodal PIO, DDA. Hence, he requested the Commission to withdraw the instant show-cause notice on account of non-delinquency on part of Nodal PIO.
Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o. AD (CS), DDA, vide letter dated 18.01.2021, for perusal before the Commission and duly taken on record. He submitted that the instant notice for hearing, dated 21.12.2020, before the Commission was never received by the O/o. Nodal PIO, DDA. Hence, he requested the Commission to withdraw the instant show-cause notice on account of non-delinquency on part of PIO.
(Interim) Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO, O/o. AD (GH), DDA, to furnish a copy of their reply dated 27.04.2022, along with annexures, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Furthermore, Commission observes that notice of hearing before the Commission was inadvertently not served upon the Appellant. Therefore, Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to fix the next date of hearing on 01st June, 2022 at 12.20 P.M. The appeal is adjourned for further proceedings Page 5 of 3 Adjunct Proceedings-II Date of (Final) Hearing : 01.06.2022 Date of (Final) Decision : 01.06.2022 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Represented by Mr. Tej Prakash Punj Respondent: Mr. Satendra Singh, PIO, O/o. Assistant Director, DDA, present.
The PIO submitted whatever information was available has already been provided to the Appellant on 27.04.2022 and previous order of the Commission is also duly complied.
The Rep. of Appellant affirmed the receipt of the relevant information. However, requested the Commission to direct the PIO to provide the relevant information till 2022.
Commission counselled the Appellant that any information sought beyond the instant RTI Application cannot be provided at this stage. In order to seek the desired information for the latest year he must file a fresh RTI Application.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and in light of the aforesaid submissions made by PIO during hearing, observes that relevant information has now been provided. Therefore, the Commission rules out any malafide intention on the part of the erring and do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of Page 6 of 3 application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought.
However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise his due diligence. The penalty proceedings as well cost imposed in the previous order is hereby dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
The appeal as well as show cause proceedings are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 3