Central Information Commission
R. M. Gupta vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 30 September, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107563
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107562
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107550
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/139911
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/139912
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/139913
Shri R.M. Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Asst. Director (Enforcement Cell), ...प्रनतवादीगण/Respondents
NDMC, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi
Through: Shri Shiv Kumar - JD(E); Shri
Moolchand Yadav; Shri Ajay Malhotra; Shri Y S
Rana
PIO/Asst. Commissioner (Shah. South),
EDMC, Karkardooma Court, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 30.09.2019
Date of Decision : 30.09.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
107563 21.06.2017 Nil 11.09.2017 Nil
107562 14.09.2017 Nil 03.11.2017 Nil
107550 14.09.2017 25.10.2017 23.11.2017 Nil
139911 05.02.2018 Nil 21.03.2018 Nil
139912 04.01.2018 Nil 09.03.2018 Nil
139913 16.01.2018 Nil 12.03.2018 Nil
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107563
Information soughtand background of the case:
Page 1 of 5Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.06.2017 seeking information on 7 points, inter alia:
1. Provide information about the action taken on lettersdated 28.12.2015 and 07.12.2015.
2. How long have the receipts for cost and removal not been released by Lakshmi Bai Store?
3. Why are Challans not being issued under section 330 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act against vendors who are vending goods without a license?
4. If you have the right to seize the goods under section 226 of the above act, then send a copy of it. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 11.09.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107562/NDMCN Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 14.09.2017 seeking information on 8 points regarding Laxmi Bai Store, inter alia:
1. Areas for whichgoods are stocked in the above store?
2. Are area wise rooms made for depositing goods in the above mentioned stores?If not, why?
3. Are CCTV installed in the above store and how many CCTV are installed, are they all working?
4. Which guards have been appointed in the above store? Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 03.11.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107550 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 14.09.2017 seeking information regarding section 226 of NDMC Act, 1994; he sought to know whether the Department of Enforcement is empowered to seize the goods of unauthorized accommodation under the above rule? Provide the complete information in this regard.
PIO/(Enf.) NDMC, vide letter dated 25.10.2017 informed the appellant that as per report of M.I (HQ)/Enforcement no filled information is required in RTI.Page 2 of 5
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.11.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/139911 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 05.02.2018 seeking information on 6 points, inter alia:
1 Whether fees by the Tehbazari holders approved by Thareja Committee who have died, are still being deposited? If not, explain its reason.
2The names of the heirs who have passed away, the names of their heirs are being transferred or not? If not, explain its reason.
4 Whether Helper/Chowkidar seize goods in the absence of Area Inspector?
6 If guidelines are issued regarding all the above mentioned points, provide a certified copy of them. Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.03.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/139912 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.01.2018 seeking information on the following 3 points:
1. Provide details of Tehbazari Challan with date and time.
2. Percentage of GST applicable on Tehbazari Challan.
3. Whether date and time is being displayed on Tehbazari Challan or not?
Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 09.03.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing of the above five appeals. Since these batch of five appeals are contested between the same parties and have similar facts and circumstances, hence they are being decided by a common order. The current JD(Enf.)- Shri Shiv Kumar has submitted written set of submissions claiming to have available information in the form of reply/ies dated Page 3 of 5 25/26.09.2019 to the aforementioned appeals. While in response to four out of five appeals, appropriate response from available records have been provided, in response to the appeal number CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/107550, Appellant has been informed that information sought by him is available on the official website of the Respondent. However, the appellant's grievance and query seem far from satisfied by these responses of the PIO/Enforcement.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case, it is evident that no reply/information was provided in response to the RTI queries earlier. It is only upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission that the current PIO has provided some reply/ies dated 25.09.2019 in response to all other RTI cases.The above appeals are not only an example of failure of the PIO, but also indicate how apathy and indifference at the level of the FAA can adversely impact the RTI regime causing failure in dissemination of information.
Under the circumstances, in order to serve the best interest of the Appellant, the Commission deems it appropriate that the matter be remanded to the FAA/Director(Enforcement-North)-Shri Abhay Jain for proper adjudication of the issues raised by the Appellant and pass a reasoned speaking order upon hearing the averments of both parties and examining all relevant aspects of the case, in details. Compliance of these directions shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 10.11.2019.
The Commission further notes that the complete inaction on the part of the Respondent PIO/Enforcement, NDMC in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, calls for an explanation. The PIO, Enforcement, NDMC is thus directed to submit a plausible explanation for delay of two years in responding to the RTI queries. The explanation should reach the Commission by 26.10.2019, failing which the Registry is directed to take suomotucognisance of the default and initiate non-compliance proceedings.
CIC/EMCDN/A/2018/139913 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 16.01.2018seeking information on 6 points regarding property no. 139/4, Sunder Gali, Shiv Mandir Marg, Mandawali, Delhi.
1. In whose name is the above property registered?
2. How many floors are made in the above property?
3. Whether the map has been passed in the construction of the above property?Page 4 of 5
4. Whether the property tax of the above property is being deposited?
Etc Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.03.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing: Appellant alone is present while none from the O/o Asst. Commissioner (Shah. South),EDMC is present to attend the hearing, neither has any submission been submitted on behalf of the respondent. The Appellant states that no reply/information has been provided by the Respondent so far. Decision:
Upon hearing averments of the appellant, the Commission is unable to overlook the callous and negligent manner in which the instant case has been dealt with by the Respondent from the O/o Assistant Commissioner, EDMC at the level of the PIO and the FAA as well. Not only has the reply not been provided on time by the PIO, even the FAA has turned a blind eye to the adjudication of First Appeal thereby perpetuating the grievance of the Appellant. Moreover, the PIO/AC, EDMC has not even bothered to attend the hearing to explain the cause of such failure and violation of provisions of the law.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs PIO/AC, EDMC - to:
a) provide complete and accurate information, in response of each of the sixqueries raised by the appellant vide RTI application dated 22.06.2017, within three weeks of receipt of this order. A compliance report of these directions shall be submitted before the Commission by 21.10.2019, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law;
b) explain the cause of inaction in replying to the RTI application, and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The explanation must reach the Commission by 21.10.2019 for examination of the penal proceedings to be initiated in this regard.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 5 of 5