Central Information Commission
Mrharish Kumar vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 21 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000568-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000579-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000567-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000569-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000576-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000577-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000578-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000580-YA
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002414-YA
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000786
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000789
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000791
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000784
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000100
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000787
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000785
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001336
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/0002415-YA
Date of Hearing : 17.10.2014
Date of Decision : 21.10.2014
Appellant : Shri Harish Kumar
Delhi
Respondent : Shri A.K. Mittal, PIO/AE(B)/WZ,
South Delhi Municipal Corp.
& Shri Rakesh Sharma, JE(B)/CZ
- rep. PIO Shri Vinod Bansal, PIO/AE(B)/SPZ Shri Gajender, OI(B)/SPZ Dr. R.K. Rawat, PIO/DHO/SPZ Shri R.K. Khari, PIO/AE(B)/SPZ North Delhi Municipal Corp., Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Page 1 of 9Both parties are present. The appellant vide several RTI applications has raised multiple queries voluminous information. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order Compliance by PIO, if any.
000568 25.10.2012 07.12.2012 20.12.2012 08.01.2013 05.03.2013 000579 25.10.2012 27.11.2012 19.12.2012 24.12.2014 07.02.2013 000567 30.10.2012 23.11.2012 19.12.2012 08.01.2013 05.03.2013 000569 25.10.2012 23.11.2012 19.12.2012 08.01.2013 05.03.2013 000576 25.10.2012 23.11.2012 19.12.2012 27.12.2012 05.03.2013 000577 30.10.2012 27.11.2012 19.12.2012 08.01.2013 07.02.2013 000578 25.10.2012 27.11.2012 19.12.2012 08.01.2013 07.02.2013 000580 25.10.2012 27.11.2012 19.12.2012 08.01.2013 07.02.2013 002414 22.04.2013 30.05.2013 01.07.2013 26.07.2013 -
000786 18.04.2013 26.08.2013 23.09.2013 25.10.2013 - 000789 18.04.2013 26.08.2013 23.09.2013 25.10.2013 11.11.2013 000791 23.04.2013 26.08.2013 23.09.2013 25.10.2013 11.11.2013 000784 23.04.2013 26.08.2013 18.07.2013 25.10.2013 11.11.2013 000100 18.04.2013 - 18.07.2013 13.08.2013 - 000787 23.04.2013 21.08.2013 23.09.2013 25.10.2013 18.02.2014 000785 21.08.2013 03.10.2013 21.10.2013 20.11.2013 - 001336 10.12.2013 13.01.2014 20.01.2014 21.02.2014 12.03.2014 002415 28.02.2013 02.07.2013 03.05.2013 11.07.2013 17.07.2013
All the appeals have been clubbed as the subject matter of RTI applications is similar, related to South DMC & North DMC. Thus, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the same are being heard & decided together.
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000568-YA F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000579-YA The appellant sought information regarding Building Construction Watching Register, certified copies of form B(i), B(ii) along with occupancy/completion certificate and details of serving period of JE/AEs of 28 wards for the period of 13.07.2010 to 25.10.2012.
The PIO/EE(B)-I/WZ in his reply stated that the information is voluminous and not ready in desired format and requested the appellant to visit their office for inspection of record. The FAA in his order directed the PIO to provide the desired record as available, to the appellant. The PIO, in compliance of the FAA's order, vide letter dated 05.03.2013 informed the appellant that the desired information is not prepared in desired format or the same can be available in different files, therefore, the appellant was requested again to inspect the concerned record as available in the dept.
The appellant stated that till date he has not received any information despite FAA's order. The respondent stated that an intimation was already sent to the appellant, wherein inspection of the relevant record was offered, since, the information sought is voluminous and is not Page 2 of 9 maintained in the form desired; but neither the appellant came to inspect the record, nor was there any intimation sent in this regard. On query by the Commission as to how this information is voluminous, the respondent clarified that every month there is approximately one plan sanctioned from every ward, so providing the same to the appellant for 2 years for 28 wards would mean that information is available in those many files (28 x 12 x 2 = 672) and thus the information sought becomes voluminous. The appellant contended that the FAA's order is clear, therefore information should have been provided.
F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000567-YA F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000569-YA F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000576-YA F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000577-YA F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000578-YA F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000580-YA The appellant sought information regarding details of residential sanction building plan files received in Building Dept.-I/II/WZ, building plans sanctioned/rejected/pending during the period 01.01.2007 to 31.10.2012; details of applications/files received in Building Dept.-I/II/WZ for regularisation, buildings regularised/rejected/pending during the period 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2012 & 01.04.2012 to 25.10.2012.
The PIOs, O/o EE(B)-I/II/WZ repeatedly intimated the appellant that the information sought is voluminous and not ready in desired format, therefore, the appellant was requested to visit their office for inspection of relevant record. The FAA, consistently, in his orders directed PIOs to provide the required documents, to the appellant. The PIOs, in compliance of FAA's orders, informed the appellant that the desired information is not prepared in desired format or the same can be available in different files, therefore, the appellant was requested again to inspect the concerned record as available in the dept.
The appellant again contended that the PIO has merely denied providing the information stating that the same is voluminous, despite the FAA's orders.
The respondent reiterated that information sought by the appellant is voluminous and not maintained in the desired format. The same is contained in a number of files, thus, the appellant has been requested, time and again, to inspect the relevant record but neither did he come for the inspection till date, nor was there any intimation sent in this regard. The respondent clarified that each application regarding sanction of building plan/regularisation is treated in a separate file and thus, it is difficult to provide the said details, received in Building Dept.-I/II/WZ for the period of 5 years.
On query by the Commission whether information sought is available in public domain, the respondent stated that information regarding booking/demolition/sanction plan of properties is available public domain but the same for regularisation of properties is not in public domain. The appellant submitted a set of manuals/instructions issued by MCD from time to time for perusal/information of the Commission.
F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002414-YA The appellant sought information regarding certified copy of complaint filed by him and action taken on the same along with certified copy of Building Construction Watching Page 3 of 9 Register of Wards 79 to 84 & 86 of City Zone, North DMC from the period 01.04.2011 till 22.04.2013, etc. PIO/EE(B)/CZ provided a point-wise reply stating that no action has been taken on the said complaint but the RTI application has been forwarded to the concerned AE/JE. The FAA in his order directed PIO/EE(B) to provide an appropriate & specific reply to the appellant.
The appellant stated that the copy of his complaint has not been provided to him till date. The respondent stated the complaint was marked to the then AE, Shri B.K. Shah and JE, Shri K.K. Kaushik, but both have now been transferred to other zones, the said complaint is not traceable. He requested the appellant to provide the same so that necessary action can be taken immediately. The appellant stated that copies of Building Construction Watching Register have not been provided to him. The respondent stated that the Building Construction Watching Register was maintained by the House Tax Dept. and the practice has now been discontinued since the introduction of the Self Assessment Scheme. The appellant alleged that the register is maintained by the Building Dept., to which the respondent stated that a Construction Watching Register in their dept. and since the appellant had specifically mentioned Building Construction Watching Register, reply was accordingly given.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000786 F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000789 F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000784 F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000791 The appellant sought information regarding sanction building plans of sub-divided properties prior to 1975 & 2007 & those that have been regularised along with number of recordable warnings, vacation notices, etc. The PIO/EE(B)/SPZ in his replies stated that information is voluminous in nature and the appellant was provided an opportunity of inspection. He also stated that information on some points is also available on the official website of the public authority. The FAA in his orders directed the PIO to provide information on specific points within a period of 75 days, keeping in view the volume of information sought by the appellant.
The appellant stated that information sought was denied by the PIO on the plea that information is voluminous and would divert the resources of the office. Thereafter, the FAA had directed the PIO to provide the information and 75 days time was also given to the PIO but till date nothing has been provided by the PIO. The respondent stated that information sought is voluminous in nature and the same is not maintained in the form sought.
The respondent referred to a Delhi High Court order wherein the Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a petitioner against demolition/sealing of a property stating that the petitioner is neither a resident in the said area nor has he professed any public interest in the matter. The respondent stated that, similarly, neither the appellant has any public interest in seeking this information nor is he a resident in the said area. He urged that there is no public interest involved in seeking such voluminous information.
The appellant stated that information is provided only on Points 6, 7 & 8. The respondent reiterated that the disclosure of information, which is contained in separate files and it is practically impossible to cull out such information, the same would divert the resources of the public authority. The respondent further stated that some of the information is third party Page 4 of 9 information. The appellant contended that the respondents are taking this plea for the first time and the same was neither taken by the PIO nor before the FAA. He stated that this plea by the respondent is wrong and information sought should be provided.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000787 F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000100 The appellant sought information regarding number of Sanction Building Plan Files/Regularization files sent to Town planning dept./town planner officer, MCD(NDMC) from 01.01.2007 to 23.04.2013, copies of office order/circular/notification issued by competent authority in this regard, details of memos issued for unauthorised construction to EE/SPZ, etc. The PIO/EE(B)/SPZ in reply to RTI application dt. 23.04.2013 stated that information is voluminous in nature and provided an opportunity of inspection. He also stated that information on some points is also available on the official website of the public authority. But no reply was provided by the PIO in response to RTI application dt. 18.04.2013. The FAA in his order dt. 25.10.2013 directed the PIO to provide information on specific points and provided a period of 75 days, keeping in view the volume of information sought by the appellant; and in order dt. 13.08.2013 merely directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant within 10 days.
The appellant stated that only part information has been given even after the order of the FAA, wherein 75 days were given to provide the information. The respondent reiterated his stand that information sought is voluminous, providing the same will lead to diversion of resources and the appellant has, time and again, refused to come for inspection of relevant record. The respondent stated that information on Points 6 to 9 has been provided.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000785 The appellant sought information regarding copies of entire file with noting/correspondence regarding DCM Complex at Bara Hindu Rao as directed by the Monitoring Committee, Supreme Court, desealing/resoration of Completion Certificate/Sealing under misuse etc. of DCM Flatted Factories Complex, application for Completion certificate of block-B, all sealing orders/notice issued by DC/SPZ & EE(B)/SPZ, etc. PIO/EE(B)/SPZ in his reply requested the appellant to visit office for inspection of record. The FAA in his order directed PIO to send amended reply along with certified copies of documents to the appellant within 10 days.
The appellant stated that no information has been provided despite FAA's order. On query by the Commission whether any reply was sent to the appellant or not, in compliance of the FAA's order, the respondent replied in the negative.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001336 F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002415-YA The appellant sought information regarding number of hotels/guest houses/lodging houses being run with and without Health Trade License, number of licenses approved/issued/renewed by Dr. Pramod Kumar Verma (DHO/SPZ) from 04.06.2013 till the date of filing of RTI application; along with number of canteens running/established in guest house/lodging houses/hotels as on 28.02.2013, officers responsible for running of illegal canteens, details of area in sq. Mtr. With name of guest houses/hotels, certified copies of G-8 Page 5 of 9 slip of Conversion/Parking charges deposited by owner/occupiers for the years 2006 to 2012 for a list of 484 hotels/guest houses/lodging houses.
The PIO/ DHO/SPZ provided point-wise replies to both the RTI application. The FAA directed PIO to provide relevant information to the appellant.
The respondent at the first instance admitted that reply given by the earlier PIO is not appropriate but the information has been provided in compliance of FAA's order. The respondent further informed that a survey in this regard is going on and complete information/details will be available once the survey is complete.
The appellant stated that a number hotels/guest houses/lodging houses being run without proper licenses, conversion charges are being paid only for the first floor whereas there are 3- storey/4-storey unauthorised/illegally constructed hotels/guest houses.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties & on perusal of record, the Commission, in cases F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000568-YA, F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000579-YA, F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000567-YA, F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000569-YA, F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000576-YA, F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000577-YA, F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000578-YA and F.No.CIC/DS/A/2013/000580-YA, is of the view that there is no public interest in the queries sought by the appellant. The applications filed by the appellant seek information which is voluminous in nature. Yet, the respondents have consented to provide him with information wherever it was possible and centrally available, in the form of offering inspection of files. In one RTI application, the appellant has sought information which can be gathered from approximately 672 files. If the public authority is compelled to reply to a spate of such applications, comprising indiscriminate and impractical demands for disclosure under the RTI Act, then the disproportionate diversion of limited resources of the PIO is bound to take its toll on the Respondent Public Authority. Moreover, the appellant has not availed the opportunity of inspection provided to him, time and again.
The Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, has held as under:-
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the 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 counterproductive 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, tranquillity 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 Page 6 of 9 of a public authorities prioritising information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Supreme Court in ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 has held as under:-
"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."
(Underlined by us) The Commission finds that the information, despite being voluminous, has not been denied by the respondents. However, in view of the spate of applications filed by the appellants which neither show any public interest or, for that matter, any other fruitful purpose, the Commission is constrained to concur with PIOs plea. The appellant also has repeatedly chosen not to avail the opportunity of inspection. Therefore, there shall be no further disclosure obligation on the part of respondent public authority, i.e. South Delhi Municipal Corp., regarding these 8 second appeals.
The Commission finds that neither the PIO in his replies, has mentioned the name of the FAA nor has the FAA has written his name in the orders passed. This is a clear violation of the RTI Act and the PIO/FAA are hereby cautioned not to make such errors in future.
The Commission also observes that the FAA has, consistently, passed non-speaking orders, without taking due note of the sheer volume of information that has been sought by the appellant in a spate of RTI applications. This is clearly reflective of the casual attitude of the FAA which refuses to change in spite of the force of judicial pronouncements and the Act itself. The FAA is, hereby, cautioned not to pass such orders but to take due cognisance of the merits of each case and pass a speaking order. A copy of this order be sent for information to Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corp., regarding the FAA mindlessly passing orders, without going into the merits of each cases.
In F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002414-YA, the Commission directs the appellant to provide the copy of his complaint dt. 21.03.2013 to the respondent, within one week of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, for necessary action and the PIO/EE(B)/CZ shall provide an action taken report on the same, to the appellant, within three weeks of receipt of the said complaint, under intimation to the Commission.
As for the plea taken by the respondent on Point 3 regarding the Building Construction Watching Register, the same is accepted and no further information is to be provided in this regard.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000786, F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000789, F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000784, F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000791, F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000787 Page 7 of 9 and F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000100, the Commission directs the appellant to intimate the PIO about the specific points and the files in that regard that he wishes to inspect, so that the PIO can keep the relevant files readily available for inspection. The appellant shall send such an intimation to the CPIO/EE(B)/SPZ within a week of receipt of this order. CPIO/EE(B)/SPZ shall fix a mutually convenient date & time for inspection of record on Points 1 to 5 with the appellant, for providing information as sought in the RTI applications, within three weeks of receipt of the appellant's intimation. The inspection shall be conducted under the supervision of Superintending Engineer. A compliance report of the said inspection shall also be sent to the Commission. While providing the information it will be open for the respondents to invoke Section 10 of RTI Act as deem fit. Copies/extracts be provided to the appellant on payment of requisite fee.
As for the order of the Delhi High Court quoted by respondents, the same is not being discussed as it has no relevance with the instant cases. Further, the Commission appreciates the FAA for passing orders as per the provisions of the Act and in the true spirit of RTI regime.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000785, the Commission is of the view that the information sought is voluminous and may not be contained in one file or register, as is evident from the CPIO's reply dt. 03.10.2013.
Therefore, the Commission directs the appellant to intimate the PIO about the specific points and the files in that regard that he wishes to inspect, so that the PIO can keep the relevant files readily available for inspection. The appellant shall send such an intimation to the CPIO/EE(B)/SPZ within a week of receipt of this order. CPIO/EE(B)/SPZ shall fix a mutually convenient date & time for inspection of record, as sought in the RTI applications, with the appellant, for providing information as sought in the RTI applications, within three weeks of receipt of the appellant's intimation. The inspection shall be conducted under the supervision of Superintending Engineer. A compliance report of the said inspection shall also be sent to the the Commission. While providing the information it will be open for the respondents to invoke Section 10 of RTI Act as deem fit. Copies/extracts be provided to the appellant on payment of requisite fee.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001336 and F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002415-YA, the Commission directs the appellant to intimate the PIO about the specific points and the files in that regard that he wishes to inspect, so that the PIO can keep the relevant files readily available for inspection. The appellant shall send such an intimation to the PIO/DHO/SPZ within a week of receipt of this order. PIO/DHO/SPZ shall fix a mutually convenient date & time for inspection of record on Points 1 to 5, with the appellant, for providing information as sought in the RTI applications, within three weeks of receipt of the appellant's intimation. The inspection shall be conducted under the supervision of Superintending Engineer. A compliance report of the said inspection shall also be sent to the the Commission. While providing the information it will be open for the respondents to invoke Section 10 of RTI Act as deem fit. Copies/extracts be provided to the appellant on payment of requisite fee.
With these observations, the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Page 8 of 9 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Page 9 of 9