Central Information Commission
Kamal Kashyap vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 2 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/655361.
Shri Kamal Kashyap ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Archaeological Survey of India ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024
Date of Decision : 27.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.08.2023
PIO replied on : 20.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 21.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 20.10.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1) A certified list of RTIs transferred under section 6(3) by Shri SK Singh and all other PIOs at ASI in 2022 and 2023. Please include the date of application and the corresponding date of transfer.
2) Regarding the RTI response to ALSOI/R/T/23/00104, please provide details on how the RTI portal for PIOs is accessible on a Saturday or from outside the Government office.
3) A certified copy of the share the attendance record of CPIO SK Singh for 08- July-2023 (a Saturday).
4) Certified copies and details of any rule, order, notification, decision, or other relevant documents that allow FAAs to dispose of Appeals, especially when the Appellants have requested an in-person hearing, without conducting a hearing. Or a rule, notification, or similar documentation that mandates FAA to hold a hearing when it is requested by the Appellant.
5) The rules and procedures or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in place to address false declarations or affidavits, including the process to be followed when an office or officer of ASI is notified by citizens of potential rule/law violations
6) Certified copies/details on the actions taken to address the false affidavit filed by Mr. Hemraj Mundada by ASI. ASI & NMA are both parties to Civil WP 12680/22 in Hon'ble Bombay HC and are well aware of the ongoing litigations (Ex RCS 1710/07) that make the affidavit submitted by Mr. Mundada patently false."Page 1 of 4
The CPIO, Assistant Superintending Archaeologist (Monument) vide letter dated 20.09.2023 replied as under:-
"1. Since, the application contains many personalized information e.g. Contact No. addresses, e-mails, etc. about the applicant therefore, sharing of the certified list of all transferred RTIs may involve breaching of their personal information, hence, cannot be provided.
2 & 3. The question put forth by the applicant vide RTI application does not qualify as information under Section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005.
4. No such direction has been issued.
5 & 6. The point Nos.5 & 6 are not related to CPIO, Monument Section of ASI HQ. So the same had been transferred to CPIO, Mumbai Circle and Competent Authority of Maharashtra O/o RD (West), Mumbai vide letter dated 28.8.2023, with a request to provide the information directly to the applicant. Copies attached herewith as Annexure-l & 11."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.09.2023. The FAA, Director (monuments) vide order dated 20.10.2023 held as under:-
"As requested by Applicant (Shri Kamal Kashyap) in their 1 st Appeal, a virtual hearing was held on 18.10.2023 with Advocate Dhruv Goel, who attended the hearing on behalf of Applicant to discuss the matter regarding the reply given by CPIO (Mon.) ASI HQ, New Delhi and CPIO, Office of Competent Authority of Maharashtra Mumbai, O/o the Regional Director (WEST) for Maharashtra. Further, Advocate Dhruv Goel has raised the issue that no details of the action taken in the case of purportedly false affidavit filed by Mr. Hemraj Mundada to obtain permission from National Monument Authority (NMA) has been received. The same is required to update the court in Civil WP 12680 of 2022 in Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Further, the applicant is not satisfied with the action taken by CPIO (Mon.) on his RTI applications and he has requested in the hearing to provide the revised reply of RTI application No. ALSOI/R/E/23/00523, dated 23.8.2023 which was answered on 21.9.2023. Hence, CPIO (Mon.) is directed to review the RTI application of Shri Kamal Kashyap and ensure that requisite information is provided to the applicant on priority and provide a copy of the same to this Office for record. In addition to the above, it appears that Office of Competent Authority of Maharashtra Mumbai, under National Monument Authority (NMA), Mumbai is the respondent in the Writ Petition No.12680 of 2022. So CPIO, Office of the Competent Authority of Maharashtra Mumbai may provide the complete available information as sought by Shri Kamal Kashyap, immediately."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant reiterating his contentions as already stated above and seeking permission to be exempt from attending the hearing in person, due to his age related inability.
The Respondent has also submitted their written submission dated 20.11.2024, reiterating the aforementioned facts and adding the FAA's order dated 20.10.2023 had been duly complied by the CPIO, Monument Section vide response dated 30.10.2023 Page 2 of 4 and provided available information to the Appellant. Copies of documents relied upon in the submission have been duly attached therewith. The Respondent has additionally submitted as under:
Besides this, it is apprised to Hon'ble Commissioner that Shri Dhruv Goel, Advocate (Representative) was present in the hearing on behalf of Shri Kunal Kashyap (Appellant) in the similar matter (in reference File No. CIC/ALSOI/C/2029/63782, dated 7.5.2024) after discussing the matter Hon'ble Commissioner had DISPOSED OFF the 2nd Appeal of Shri Kunal Kashyap with the directions that "the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant /Complainant, hence no action warranted under action 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the aforementioned complaint is disposed off, accordingly", (copy of the decision is attached as Annexure VII) The CPIO, ASI, Maharashtra Circle has submitted a written submitted dated 22.11.2024 reiterating the above facts and adding as under:
The information sought by the appellant pertains to a third party i.e. documents related to NOC, therefore, it is humbly submitted that, NMA, Competent Authority, and ASI are different offices. As per the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 (Amendment & Validation 2010) the National Monuments Authority and Competent Authority have been set up exclusively for grant of No Objection Certificates for construction/reconstruction/renovation/ repairs etc. within the prohibited/regulated areas of the centrally protected monuments. As such, the Regional Director (Western Region), ASI, Mumbai has been designated as the Competent Authority for Maharashtra for receiving, verifying, and processing NOC applications along with documents in respect of centrally protected monuments situated in Maharashtra including Mumbai Circle. There is no role of ASI Mumbai Circle for receiving, processing and granting of permission for constructional activities.
Another written submission dated 22.11.2024 has been received from the Office of the Regional Director, ASI, Sion Fort stating that the matter in question pertains to Maharashtra Circle office instead of Sion. However, responses based on available information had been duly sent to the Applicant from time to time as and when the matter was inadvertently transferred to the Sion office. The most recent of responses was sent on 21.11.2024 to the Appellant, enclosing the earlier responses already sent by the same office.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Akshat Kaushik - CPIO, Dr. Manish rai and Shri A V Nagarajan were present during hearing.
Respondents present during hearing placed reliance on their written submissions indicating that whatever relevant information was available on record and permissible to be disclosed under the RTI Act had been duly sent to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.
Decision:Page 3 of 4
Perusal of records of the case particularly the various written submissions filed by the different offices of the Respondent clearly reflects that information available on record and categorised as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in response to his repeated queries.
The Respondents are directed to send copy of the written submissions mentioned hereinabove and submitted before the Commission with complete annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since the submissions of the PIO are found to be adequate, appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, the same are upheld. In view of the earlier decision passed by this Commission on 29.05.2024 in the cases CIC/ALSOI/C/2023/637482 and CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/637481 with respect to similar query raised by the same Applicant, no fresh adjudication is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)