Central Information Commission
Ashok Sikka vs Gnctd on 17 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/SA/A/2016/000532-YA
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2017
Date of Decision : 20.02.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Ashok Sikka, Gurgaon
Respondent : GNCTD
Through: Sh. A K Jain, AE(B)
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.10.2015
PIO replied on : 08.01.2016
First Appeal filed on : 16.11.2015
First Appellate Order on : 31.12.2015
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 25.01.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
The applicant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2015 regarding implementation of order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in WP(C) No. 4205/2015. The appellant sought the status report of such implementation in the form of seven points including about - construction of houses in Sainik Farm, New Delhi. Having not received any response from the public authority within stipulated time, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.11.2015, which was disposed of by the FAA vide order dated 31.12.2015 directing the PIO to provide the complete information. PIO vide reply dated 08.01.2016 provided point wise information to the appellant. Meanwhile the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties appeared during the hearing. A brief background of the case as narrated by the appellant is that his house at Sainik Farms was demolished in 2007 without issuing any prior notice to him and therefore denying natural justice and a fair opportunity to defend himself. Whereas the remaining unauthorised constructions located around the same area were left untouched. In fact though no orders declaring his property as unauthorised or illegal was ever issued, despite specific directions of the Delhi High Court for destroying the identified unauthorised constructions in the area, no action was taken against those properties which were illegally constructed. The inaction and gross violation of the Court orders by the Respondent Civic Authority have resulted in construction of approximately 700 more unauthorised structures in the area. Under the circumstances the Appellant therefore claims the right to be treated equally as other property owners and seeks to challenge the authority for demolition of his property in isolation. The germane issues which emerge from the detailed contentions of the appellant are threefold, i) implementation of the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 4205/2015; ii) demolitions done pursuant to order/s of the High Court and iii) unauthorised and illegal construction of 500-700 new houses in Sainik Farms area despite directions of the Delhi High Court vide order dated 09.05.2007 in WP(C) No. 6734/2000.
The AE arrived late and submitted that he was not equipped with any information about the matter. It is noted that not only directions of the High Court have been allegedly flouted by the respondent, but the CPIO in this case has chosen not to appear for the hearing despite advance notice from the Commission. Instead a subordinate official has been sent as a proxy, at the last moment with no preparation about the facts of the case. This conduct of the CPIO is highly objectionable and the Commission takes a strong note of it. In an attempt to provide some inputs, the respondent states that despite 20 gates constructed in the Sainik farms area after 2014, it has been virtually impossible to check or prevent inflow of building materials to the area since these gates are accessed by inhabitants of the neighbouring villages located at the periphery of the area. The AE further informed the Commission that even Delhi Jal Board has started operations in this area thereby gradually bringing it within the recognised regularised colonies.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission is dismayed at the allegedly blatant violation of Court orders by the Respondent. And in continuance of their audacity, the Respondent avoid providing any specific reply to the RTI application of a victim of their inappropriate practice of demolishing a property without granting any notice and even choose to be absent from this hearing so as not to answer the Commission. This conduct is totally unacceptable and the Commission is constrained to issue a Show Cause notice upon Sh. Arun Kumar, PIO and Executive Engineer (B-II), South Zone, SDMC for deliberately obstructing the flow of information and providing incorrect and incomplete information to the appellant. The Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a SHOW CAUSE notice and schedule a hearing as per available dates. The Noticee shall submit a Reply to the Commission atleast a week before the hearing explaining why penal action should not be initiated against him for the aforesaid dereliction of duty and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission further directs the PIO, EE (B-II) to furnish a Revised Reply providing complete and correct information against each of the query of the appellant, marking a copy thereof to the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-