Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar vs Irrigation And Flood Control ... on 30 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IAFCD/A/2023/625845
Sanjay Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of Executive Engineer,
Civil Division No. IX,
Irrigation and Flood Control Deptt.,
Rohini Office Complex, Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi - 110089. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.08.2024
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 24.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 13.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.05.2023
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2023 seeking the following information:
1) Please provide me a copy of status report filed by the chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood control department, Delhi in the hon'ble High Court in Cr. W.P. no 703/98 in the matter of Sadhna Tyagi v/s GNCTD and ors.
2) Please provide me a copy of the order of deputy Commissioner/addl.
Collector (North) dated 14-07-2007 in the matter of Satpal Tyagi v/s Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Delhi.
3) The Chief/Executive Engineer of Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Delhi has stated in the status report filed in criminal writ petition no. 703/98 that on being given "The possession of land on 23-03-1979, the land was secured by fencing, which was later replaced by 8 ft. high wall (still existing to date) whereas the order of the Deputy Commissioner/addl. Collector (North) dated 14-07-2007 (Page 11) "no actual demarcation was conducted on 23-03-1979 and 30-01-1990. On 23- 03-1979 only handing over of possession was done and on 30-01- 1990 only verification of the area of the drain was done". Who is telling the truth?
4) Please provide me a copy of Hon'ble High Court order dated 24/02/2010 in the matter of Hardev Nagar Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) and others versus Govt of NCT of Delhi and others in W.P. (c) 5201 of 2008.
5) Kindly explain in detail Clause 9 and Clause 18 of the order mentioned above in query no. 4 and implications thereof to yourself.
6) Kindly explain, why the erection of approximately 10 boards claiming 144 feet strip of land North of boundary wall of supplementary drain alongside Hardev Nagar and Harijan Basti, Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi- 110084 is not an express threat to the residents of the area claimed by you.
7) Please explain, why you disagree with the contents of Letter no. F.NO.I-
33/UC/UD/Policy/2012/549-553 dated 04-09-2012 issued by Government of National Territory of Delhi, Urban Development Department, 9th Level, Delhi Secretariat. I.P. Estate, New Delhi (copy of the letter attached).
8) Why your action of claiming 144 feet of strip of land toward North of your boundary wall of supplementary drain not considered as Contempt of Court. Please explain.
9) Have you ever since 23-03-1979 and till date complained to any competent authority that you are short of even 1 sq. inch of land out of 155-05 Bigha land that was handed over to you on 23-03-1979 (award Page 2 of 5 no. 40/79 =80)? If not, why? If yes, then provide a copy of the said complaint.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.04.2023 stating as under:
With reference to your RTI application referred above. In this connection, it is intimated that the requisite information is available in approximate 26 page 3/- each (Legal size) the information can be provided to you by depositing of requisite amount ie. Rs. 78/- in this division. (the number of pages may be increased or decreased the amount shall be adjusted accordingly to the number of pages at the time of delivery of document).
This is in continuation of this office letter No. F 16(40)/EE/CD- IX/DB/2023-24/45-47 dated 10.04.2023 under RTI Act vide which it was requested for depositing the fees for photocopies of documents and the same has been deposited by you. Now, therefore, the copies of the said documents as required are enclosed herewith, in pages No. 1 to 26 (Legal).
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 02.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Anurag Jain, EE & PIO present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. He stated that information on point Nos. 2 and 4 has been provided to him by the Respondent and information on remaining points is yet to be furnished by the Respondent.Page 3 of 5
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that reply/information as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the information sought on point No. 1 of the RTI application is 24 years old record and may not be available/traceable in their office.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent except point Nos. 2 and 4 of the RTI application.
With respect to point No. 1 of the RTI application, the Respondent contended that the information sought is 24 years old and may not be available in their records. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to again make thorough search in their records on point No. 1 of the RTI application and provide information to the Appellant. If such information is not available then the Respondent is directed to give a specific reply in this regard and should also mention the efforts made by them in searching the records.
With respect to point Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI application, the Commission observes that specific reply was not provided to the Appellant by the Respondent. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to re-examine point Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI application and give categorical point-wise reply/information to the Appellant.
With respect to point Nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application, the Commission observes that the query raised by the Appellant is based on conjectures which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure Page 4 of 5 that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
The above directions of the Commission should be complied by the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Deptt., Rohini Office Complex, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi - 110089 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)