Central Information Commission
Kuldeep Kumar vs Mcd on 23 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/YA/A/2016/001144
Date of Hearing : 26.04.2017
Date of Decision : 26.04.2017
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar
Through:
Ms. Rashmika Singh, Advocate
Respondent : New Delhi Municipal Council
Through:
Shri Rakesh Chadhha
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.11.2015
PIO replied on : 18.02.2015
First Appeal filed on : 04.01.2016
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 03.03.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 30.11.2015, the appellant sought the following information in respect of leased shops in Khanna Market, New Delhi on six points.
1. Name and Designation of the officer who handles the allotment and lease of additional strip of land,
2. certified copy of all provisions/circulars/letters/office orders/terms and conditions of lease deed/Bye Laws/Notification and /or Policy guidelines of the L & DO and NDMC for the allotment/lease of Additional strip of land,
3. Certified copy of list of allotment and lease of shops and Additional strip of land,
4. Name and Address of the person who is in exclusive possession and ownership of the Additional Strip
5. Certified copy building sanction plan for shop no. 80, 81, 81-A, 82.
6. Certified copy of building sanction plan for said shop. Certified copy of all circulars/office order/bye laws regarding calculation and demand of damage and misuse charge issued by NDMC and other authorities..
Vide letter dated 18.12.2015, the CPIO replied as follows:
1. The allotment and lease of additional strip of land situated at the back of shops in Khanna Market is made by L&DO.
2. The said information (is) available on the website of L&DO and NDMC i.e. www.ldo.nic.in and www.ndmc.gov in respectively.
3. This is third party information which cannot be divulged without getting NOC from the owner. May visit the office for informing the property no. of which the file you want to seen.
4. Question is not clear.
5. Copy of your RTI application transferred to C.A. department for answer of the same.
6. Please see the L&DO Compendium under reply of RTI i.e. www.l&do.gov.in Dissatisfied over the information received from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not adjudicate the matter. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that inconclusive and evasive reply was furnished against all queries. On point no. 2 of the RTI application & the corresponding reply given, she contends that even though the information was placed in public domain through a web portal, the CPIO is not absolved of his duty to cull out and furnish precise information. Objection raised on other points were also heard. Per contra, the CPIO reiterated his earlier stand as reflected in the reply dated 12.12.2015.
Decision:
The Commission shall advert to give point wise observations.
Information furnished against point no,1 is vague. The name of the competent authority of L&DO must be informed to the appellant. Issue sought to be raised by Ld. Counsel for appellant as regards point no. 2 is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Commission in Sh. K. Lall Vs. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO, F.No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112. The aforesaid decision was duly approved by the Hon'ble High Court in Registrar of Companies & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [MANU/DE/2552/2012]. The relevant extract from the judgment pronounced by HMJ Vipin Sanghi is reproduced hereinafter:
9. It shall be interesting to examine this proposition.
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act speaks of "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority.......". The use of the words "accessible under this Act"; "held by" and "under the control of" are crucial in this regard. The inference from the text of this sub-section and, especially the three expressions quoted above, is that an information to which a citizen will have a right should be shown to be a) an information which is accessible under the RTI Act and
b) that it is held or is under the control of a certain public authority. This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be "held" or "under the control of" the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. This interpretation is further strengthened by the provisions of the RTI Act in Sections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4), which oblige the public authority to constantly endeavour "to take steps in accordance with the requirement of clause b of subsection 1 of the Section 4 to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information."
..............................................................................
16. In my considered view, therefore, the CPIO and the AA were acting in consonance with the provision of this Act when they called upon the appellant to access the information requested and not otherwise supplied to him by the CPIO, by paying the price / cost as determined by the public authority.
........................................... In the light of aforesaid settled position, the reply tendered by CPIO on point no. 2 of the RTI application is held valid. The requested information is already placed in public domain and thus no longer held by the public authority. As such, the information sought does not fall within the purview of information u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act. CPIO was well within his right to advise the appellant to peruse the information over web portal.
As against point no. 3, the reply of CPIO is contrary to the settled law. Details of allotment of property built by a public authority to a purchaser/ licensee is not a private record. This information cannot be denied to legislature and hence, it can't be kept under wraps. Accordingly, the reply of CPIO on this point is set aside & he is directed to furnish information afresh. The Commission further directs the CPIO to publish this class of information on the web portal within 1 month.
The query no. 4 is vague since it seeks to ascertain ownership details of land situated behind 'any shop' in Khanna Market. Since the query is not precise, the reply of CPIO on point 4 is upheld. Even in course of hearing, the appellant couldn't refocus his query.
The CPIO states that the RTI application was transferred to office of Chief Architect on 18.12.2015 as regards query no 5 and the outcome is not known. The appellant states that no information was received from office of Chief Architect. The CPIO, O/o Chief Architect shall furnish reply to the appellant in accordance with law after following due process laid u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. The registry is directed to serve a copy of this order alongwith a copy of RTI application to the Chief Architect, NDMC; who shall furnish information on point no. 5 within 4 weeks.
Further, the reply furnished on point 6 is upheld since the same is stated to be already placed in public domain. The respondent apprised the Commission that all policy documents. & circulars of NDMC as affecting public are hosted on the web portal of the public authority.
The appeal is allowed partly, in the aforesaid terms. The CPIO, NDMC shall comply with the decision within 2 weeks of receipt under intimation to the Commission.
(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:-
Deputy Director - (Estate-II), First Appellate Authority under New Delhi Municipal RTI Council, Estate-II Director -
Department, Palika Kendra, (Estates-II), New Delhi Parliament Street, New Municipal Council, Estates-II Delhi-110001. Department, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
KULDEEP KUMAR SHOP NO. : 81-A, KHANNA MARKET, NEW DELHI-110003.