Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 May, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपील सं ा/ Second Appeal No.: CIC/DDATY/A/2019/125210
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119138
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119134
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119132
िशकायतसं ा / Complaint No.: CIC/DDATY/C/2019/125209
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119133
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119139
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119136
Akshay Kumar Malhotra .....अपीलकता/ िशकायतकता
s
... Appellant /Complainant
VERSUS
1. Public Information Officer under RTI,
Deputy Director-(Horticulture),
Delhi Development Authority,
Horticulture Division-10, CSC-656,
Sanjay Enclave, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-
110033.
2. Nodal Public Information Officer-HQ,
Assistant Director-(RTI Section),
Delhi Development Authority,
RTI Implementation & Coordination
Branch, C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A. Colony, New Delhi-110023.
... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Date of Hearing : 24-05-2021
Date of Decision : 24-05-2021
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/125210 CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119138
RTI application filed : 11.03.2019 06.02.2019
on
CPIO replied on : 06.04.2019 05.03.2019
First appeal filed on : 11.04.2019 09.03.2019
First Appellate : 08.05.2019 09.04.2019
Authority order
Second Appeal : 28.05.2019 25.04.2019
received at CIC
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119134 CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119132
RTI application filed : 14.02.2019 08-02-2019
on
CPIO replied on : 12.03.2019 12-03-2019
First appeal filed on : 18.02.2019 18-02-2019
First Appellate : 18.03.2019 18-03-2019
Authority order
Second Appeal : 25.04.2019 25-04-2019
received at CIC
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/125209 CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119133
RTI application filed : 11.03.2019 14.02.2019
on
CPIO replied on : 06.04.2019 12.03.2019
First appeal filed on : 11.04.2019 18.02.2019
First Appellate : 08.05.2019 18.03.2019
Authority order
Second Appeal : 28.05.2019 25.04.2019
received at CIC
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119139 CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119136
RTI application filed : 06-02-2019 08.02.2019
on
CPIO replied on : 05-03-2019 12.03.2019
First appeal filed on : 09-03-2019 18.02.2019
First Appellate : 09-04-2019 18.03.2019
Authority order
Second Appeal : 25-04-2019 25.04.2019
received at CIC
सूचनाआयु : ी हीरालाल साम रया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Note: The above referred appeals & Complaints are clubbed together as
they are preferred by the same individual against the same respondents.
Since the issues involved in the present appeals are similar in nature, the
Commission proposes to adjudicate upon them together through the
present order.
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/125210
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding:
PIO furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 06.04.2019, as under:
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2019.
The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2019, held as under:
PIO furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 02.05.2019, as under:
Written submission has been received from the Appellant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119138 Information sought:
The Appellant sought information as under:
Etc. PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 05.03.2019, furnished reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2019.
The FAA vide order dated 09.04.2019, held as under:
PIO furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 06.04.2019, as under:
Written submissions have been received from Appellant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119134 Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding:
Etc. Dissatisfied that no information was furnished, the Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 18.02.2019.
PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 12.03.2019, furnished reply as under:
The FAA vide order dated 18.03.2019, held as under:
Written submission has been received from the Appellant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o DY. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119132 Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding:
Etc. Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2019.
The FAA vide order dated 18.03.2019, held as under:
PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 12.03.2019, as under:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submission have been received from PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/125209 Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information regarding:
PIO, Dy. Director (H), DDA, Delhi, furnished reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 06-04-2019 stating that:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11-04-2019.
The FAA vide order dated 08-05-2019, held as under:
PIO furnished reply to the Complainant, vide letter dated 02.05.2019, as under:
Written submissions have been received from Complainant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submissions have been received from PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Complainant.
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119133 Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information regarding:
Etc. Dissatisfied that no response received, the Complainant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 18.02.2019.
PIO, Dy. Director (H), DDA, Delhi, furnished reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 12-03-2019 stating as under:
The FAA vide order dated 18-03-2019, held as under:
Written submission has been received from the Complainant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submissions have been received from PIO, O/o Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Complainant.
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119139 Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information regarding:
Etc. PIO, Dy. Director (H), DDA, Delhi, furnished reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 05-03-2019.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09-03-2019.
The FAA vide order dated 09-04-2019, held as under:
In compliance with the orders of the FAA, PIO, Dy. Director (H), DDA, furnished reply to the Complainant, vide letter dated 06.04.2019, as under:
Written submission has been received from the Complainant, vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
Written submission have been received from PIO, O/o Dy. Director(H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Complainant.
CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119136 The Complainant sought information as under:
Dissatisfied that no reply was furnished within stipulated time period, the Complainant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 18.02.2019. PIO, Dy. Director (H), DDA, Delhi, furnished reply to the Complainant, vide letter dated 12-03-2019, stating as under:
FAA, vide order dated 18.03.2019, held as under:
Written submissions have been received from the Complainant. vide letter dated 18.05.2021, for perusal before the Commission.
A written submission has been received from PIO, Dy. Director (H), DDA, vide letter dated 20.05.2021, as under:
Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: present on phone.
Respondent: Shri Jamil Ahmad, (Dy.Dir & PIO), Delhi Development Authority, Horticulture Division-10, present on phone.
Appellant/Complainant stated that he has submitted a detailed written submissions dated 18.05.2021 for the perusal of the Commission. He further stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO in either of the referred cases. He furthermore reiterated the factual matrix in all the referred cases and laid emphasis on the fact that the information sought by him is in larger public interest. He concluded by requesting the Commission to take penal action against the erring PIOs and direct them to provide point wise information to him.
PIO submitted that a detailed written submission has been submitted for the perusal of the Commission. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of the Commission, if any.
Observation :
At the outset Commission observes that present RTI applications are aimed to extract every possible information from the public authority and is akin to conducting a performance audit. The queries solicit voluminous information and each one of them tends to dig out metadata.
Therefore, Commission is irked by the said conduct of the Appellant in using the RTI channel in such manner wherein most of the information sought by him is either voluminous, hypothetical or vague in nature and same are sought in extremely cumbersome manner, Moreover the second appeals, complaints and Written submissions submitted are also prepared in the cyclostyle manner. Commission observes that disclosure of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the Respondent Authorities thereby attracting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, upon detailed perusal of the case records, Commission is of the opinion that while in all the instant cases, Appellant/Complainant has asserted that that the information sought is in the larger public interest, the fact remains that the manner in which he has sought to channelize his said crusade under the garb of larger public interest through RTI Act renders his efforts redundant. Thus, even if Commission were to sparingly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant's part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifles and negates the very purpose of RTI Act. In other words, however noble the end of this vociferous attempt of bringing about probity in the functioning of Respondent Authority would have been, fact remains that the means adopted by the Appellant regrettably speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a PIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such repetitive, cumbersome and implausible RTI Applications merely claiming that it is intrinsic for larger public interest.
Adverting to the supra-Commission observes that it appears that Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognized by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) &anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and
(c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. 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."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...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."
"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."
Decision:
Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, this bench of the Commission issues following directions:
In case nos. CIC/DDATY/A/2019/125210 + CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119138 CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119134 + CIC/DDATY/A/2019/119132:
Commission observes that PIO has provided reply in the referred cases, however Appellant is not satisfied with the same and thus, Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect available and relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Applications of the referred cases, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing at the respondent's office. In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for the said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided free of cost upto 25 pages and beyond that prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012 must be charged. However, no information should be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In case, relevant record contains any third-party information or any other exempted information then same must be redacted or blacked out prior to the said inspection.
Commission's directions should be complied within 45 days after the current situation normalization and PIO rejoins the office and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. Further, to allay the vehement apprehension of the appellant regarding withholding of the relevant information, Commission directs the PIO to file an appropriate affidavit after the completion of the averred inspection stating that available and relevant records as sought in the referred RTI Applications were produced to the appellant for inspection and no material information has been withheld from disclosure. The said affidavit shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission along with the aforementioned compliance report and a copy of the said affidavit must also be endorsed to the Appellant.
Further, this bench of the Commission observes that PIO in all the Complaint cases ( CIC/DDATY/C/2019/125209 + CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119133 CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119139 + CIC/DDATY/C/2019/119136 ) has provided appropriate reply to the Complainant and thus, no malafide intention can be ascribed on him/her. In view of the foregoing no penal action is warranted in the referred complaint matters.
With the above observations and directions referred Complaints and Second Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल साम रया)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Akshay Kumar Malhotra
House No.-AC- 179-A,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.