Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 5 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/104931
CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/104932
Akshay Kumar Malhotra ......अपीलकता/Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LOKPAL OF INDIA, RTI CELL,
PLOT NO.6, PHASE-II,
INSTITUTIONAL AREA, VASANT
KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/02/2023
Date of Decision : 30/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
RTI application filed on :27/11/2021
CPIO replied on :27/12/2021
First appeal filed on :27/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order :30/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :31/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to a complaint lodged by me with Office of Hon'ble Lokpal as per details given hereunder:
Complainant Name- Akshay Kumar Malhotra Complaint lodged against Horticulture-10 Division of Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Complaint Regn No. of Hon'ble Lokpal 61/2021 Order of Hon'ble Lokpal Dated 12.11.2021 (Received by me on 25.11.2021, which was forwarded to me by letter Ref No. C-12016/61/2021-Lokpal/1475 dated 23.11.2021 Some quotes from the Order dated 12.11.2021 of Hon'ble Lokpal:
1. `By Order dated 24.08.2021 of the Full Bench of Lokpal of India, CVC was directed to file the status report on or before 28.09.2021.'
2. 'Now vide letter dated 30.09.2021, CVC had submitted the status report, received from DDA.'
3. 'After examination the contents of the report submitted by Pr. Commissioner (Hort.) i.e. the documentary evidence provided like photographs of the parks '
4. '...comments of the public, regarding satisfaction of the maintenance of parks ...'
5. '..Dy director ( Horticulture) letter to MCD regarding removal of stray dogs...'
6. '...proof of recoveries have been effected from the contractors bill by Horticulture Deptt.'
7. is concluded that no shortcomings on the part of Horticulture field staff in the maintenance of parks and No vigilance angle is perceived.
Even though I am entitled to get the copy of the reply(ies), given by all the concerned, either from DDA or from any other office/organization including office of CVC related to my complaint, but I am not been provided with the same. So please inform me and provide me with the copies of all such communications / replies etc. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.12.2021 stating as under:
"Reply Point No. 1-3:- It Is hereby informed that the status report submitted by the CVC spread over 159 pages. You are requested to deposit Rs. 318/- @ Rs. 2/- per page as per the provisions under the RTI Rules,2012 & RTI Act,2005, through' 2 either Indian Postal Order/Banker Cheque /Demand Draft on 4avor of the Pay & Account Officer, Lokpal of India, Delhi Point No 4 - File (Le ENO. C-12016/61/2021- Lokpal) will be shown to you in the office of the Lokpal of India on a mutually agreed date."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 30.12.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"...information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain, by itself by the public authority, but it didn't do it and which is a violation of Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005."
While under Complaint, the Complainant seeks penal and disciplinary action be against the CPIO and an inquiry should be constituted as per Section 18(2) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, US & CPIO present in person.
The Appellant argued that since the status report filed by DDA to CVC and presented to the Lokpal with reference to his complaint should have been provided to him in keeping with the principle of natural justice but was not provided, therefore, under the RTI Act, since the matter concerns larger public interest, the information should have been provided to him free of cost.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was duly offered with the available information conditional upon payment of the prescribed fees but the Appellant is insistent on being provided with the information free of cost.3
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the Commission is at a loss to comprehend the rationale of the Appellant in insisting for the information to be provided to him free of cost on the mere pretext that according to his belief, matters concerning larger public interest ought to be provided free of cost under the RTI Act or that since he believes this is a matter of larger public interest, the information should be available in the public domain.
The fees sought for by the CPIO is as per the prescribed provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act read with Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012.
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act provides as under:
"Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub- section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed..."
Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012 provides as under:
"4. Fees for providing information.--Fee for providing information under sub-section (4) of Section 4 and sub-sections (I) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act shall be charged at the following rates, namely :-- (a) rupees two for each page in A-3 or smaller size paper;"
Having observed as above, the Commission finds the instant complaint and appeal grounds bereft of merit.
The appeal & complaint are dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5