Central Information Commission
Prakash Goswami vs Directorate Of Estates on 18 December, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/DOEST/A/2018/135132-BJ+
CIC/DOEST/A/2018/135131-BJ+
CIC/DOEST/A/2018/135130-BJ+
CIC/DOEST/A/2018/135129-BJ
Mr. Prakash Goswami
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Directorate of Estates
M/o Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.12.2019
Date of Decision : 17.12.2019
Date of RTI application 28.11.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 23.01.2018 /
19.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.06.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding damages charged from unauthorized occupants listed in Government of India, Directorate of Estates (Office Section) Notice No. 1/4/2011-Ofc dated 06.10.2012 which was published in TOI on 27.11.2012 on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Page 1 of 10HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Vijender Singh, AD (B-III), Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, DD (A-II) and Mr. Dinesh, DD (A III);
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent present at the hearing stated that a suitable response was sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 19.01.2018 stating that the information was not readily available in a compiled format and that it would unnecessarily divert the resources of the Directorate under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, which was returned undelivered due to incorrect postal address. On being queried by the Commission whether any Parliament Question regarding the damages charged from unauthorized occupants listed in Government of India, Directorate of Estates (Office Section) in response to the news item referred to in the RTI application, was made by the Respondent Public Authority, the Respondent replied in the negative. On being further questioned by the Commission regarding publication of any report in this regard subsequent to news flashed in TOI on 27.11.2012 upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 12065/2009 in UOI vs. Vimal Bhai & Ors., regarding damages charged from unauthorized occupants, no cogent reply was offered by the Respondent who further submitted that if the Applicant would ask for any specific case, they would be willing to answer accordingly. Moreover, inspection of documents was also offered by the Respondent for any specific case. The Appellant in his 2nd Appeal alleged that the most of the occupants were not charged damages/penal rent for the period of unauthorized occupation because of illegal gratification received from such residents and that the concerned estate officials also indulged in massive corrupt practices and the occupants who refused to bribe them were selectively being targeted. The Appellant in his prayer requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the requisite information as sought in his RTI application dated 28.11.2017. The Commission was however appalled to learn that the damages charged from unauthorized occupants listed in Government of India, Directorate of Estates (Office Section) was not available in the Respondent Public Authority in a compiled format which was a matter of larger public interest.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 1035..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"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 Page 3 of 10 transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Furthermore, in this context a reference was also made to the OM no. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T pertaining to guidelines for the implementation of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 10With regard to larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein while explaining the term "Public Interest" it was held as under:-
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (Crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest':
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."Page 5 of 10
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act." Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this Page 6 of 10 context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
The Commission moreover felt that there was an urgent need to develop a robust system of record keeping in the Respondent Public Authority and to review its efficaciousness periodically. In this context, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar, W.P.(C) 3660/2012 dated 13.09.2013 wherein the Court had in a matter where inquiry was ordered by the Commission observed as under:
"6............It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act."
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Chandravadan Dhruv vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, Special Civil Application No. 2398 of 2013 dated 21.12.2013 held as under:
Page 7 of 10"24. Since the issue raised by the petitioner is of a vital public importance, we, on our own, made a little research on the subject and found that the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India has constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. As a part of this Task Force, IT for Change is facilitating a sub group on 'Guidelines for Digital Publication under RTI supporting Proactive Disclosure of Information'. As a part of the work of this sub-group a one day consultation was held on the said subject i.e. 'Formulating guidelines for digital publication under RTI supporting proactive disclosure of information' in Bengaluru. 25.3 How to ensure proper record keeping?
• The required level of proactive disclosure is not possible without appropriate record keeping, and this aspect needs focused attention. There are detailed rules for record keeping and they should be strictly followed and the scheme for it should be published. Record keeping practices may have to be reviewed from the point of view of comprehensive proactive disclosure requirements, especially through digital means. • Section 4.1.a is very clear about the need for proper record keeping, inducing in digital and networked form. Funds should be earmarked for digitizing records. Complete details of all records that are maintained and available digitally, and about those which are not, with due justification thereof, should be published. Annual reports on compliance with section 4.1.a should be sought by the Information Commissions. • The costs involved in digitizing resources and maintaining networked computer based record-keeping and information systems is often cited as a major deterrent. It was felt that it is no longer a major issue. India is at par or better in terms of IT issues than many developed countries that maintain high standards of digital publishing of public information. The real cost is in terms human resources, including skills, and these are easily available at all levels in India today.
• An example was given about how a government office in Bangalore was able to scan all its documents at a very low cost. Another example that was discussed was of 'Bhoomi' project in Karnataka, whereby, it was contended that, if open public access to such complex spatial data as the land records of the entire state can be ensured, how can giving access to all textual documents of an office or department be any more difficult."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Page 8 of 10DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the Appellant in his Second Appeal in dealing with the RTI applications by the Public Authority, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish the requisite information as sought in the RTI application to the Appellant as held by the Respondent, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.
The Commission was appalled to learn about the recalcitrant attitude of the CPIO who had dealt with the RTI application in a casual and callous manner. The CPIO is therefore cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 17.12.2019
Copy to:
1. Shri Durga Shankar Mishra, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Room No. 122-C, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011
2. Director, Directorate of Estates, Room No. 439 'C' wing, 4th Floor, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011 Page 9 of 10 Page 10 of 10