Central Information Commission
Pramod Kumar Oberoi vs Ministry Of Housing & Urban Affairs on 19 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: 34 cases (Complaints and Second Appeals)
1) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135478,
2) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135479,
3) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135477,
4) CIC/LADOF/C/2023/134547,
5) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/161186,
6) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104375,
7) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104373,
8) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106214,
9) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106209,
10) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106211,
11) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106215,
12) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109235,
13) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109236,
14) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109237,
15) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109238,
16) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110006,
17) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110007,
18) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110008,
19) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110009,
20) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121795,
21) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124061,
22) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/127636,
23) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106205,
24) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110010,
25) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121794,
26) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124059,
27) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124060,
28) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/127635,
29) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/140886,
30) CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146940,
31) CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146942,
32) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148267,
33) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148268,
34) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148269.
Page 1 of 60
Pramod Kumar Oberoi ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
C Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
CPIO,
Dy. L&DO-Vigilance, Land & Development
Office, Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, 6th Floor, A Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.12.2024
Date of Decision : 18.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The abovementioned Complaints and Second Appeal have been clubbed
together for disposal through common order as these are based on similar
issues raised by the same applicant against the same Respondent Public
Authority.
(1) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135478
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 16.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 28.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.08.2023
Page 2 of 60
Information sought:
The complainant/appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"(I). A copy of applicant's letter dated 19th Sept, 2022, receipt of which was darned vide No. E-2128570 dated 19-09-2022.
(ii). Name and designation of the Government servant to whom the letter as Per point No. (1) above was Put up/forwarded for further action.
(iii). Name(s) with designations of at Government servants including the last redolent to whom the said letter as per Point (I) above, as per hierarchy, was forwarded/marked for requisite action.
(iv). Name with designation with whom the said letter as per point (i) above Is at present pending for requisite action.
(v). Whether any Government servant(s) to whom the above letter as per point (i) above was marked for action have since been transferred/ relinquished office for whatever reasons. If so, the names) with designation(s) of the Government servants posted In succession.
(vi). Whether any time period for final disposal of such issues as per letter as per point (i) above, has been Specified. If so, a certified copy of such directive be Provided. In case of the reply being negative, name with designation of Competitive Authority for acting on issues like delay in disposal/inaction etc.
(vii). Information on the procedure applied for disposal of complaints/grievances lodged through hard physical copy such as per point (I) above.
(viii). Name with designation of the Dealing Assistant If any, to whom the said letter as per point (i) above was marked foe action and not already covered under Points (iii) and (iv) above. Certified copy each of all note sheets in connection with above.
(ix). Number of complaints/grievances similar to one as per point (I) above that are pending disposal along with the name and designation of Government servant to whom the same were marked for requisite action. "Page 3 of 60
The CPIO/अनुभाग अ धकार (पी.आइ.सी.) transferred the RTI to the Nodal Officer (RTI) on 16.03.2023 under intimation to the complainant/appellant, by stating as under:
"चँू क आवेदन प आपके कायालय/ !वभाग से अ धक स"बं धत है , इस(लए आवेदन प सूचना *दान करने के (लए आपके कायालय/ !वभागको अ,े!षत कया जा रहे है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(2) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135479 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.03.2023 CPIO replied on : 16.03.2023 First appeal filed on : 29.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.08.2023 Information sought:
The complainant/appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). A copy of applicant's letter dated 30th August, 2022, receipt of which was diarized vide No. E-2116159 dated 05-09-2022.
(ii). Name(s) with designations of all Government servants including the last recipient to whom the said letter as per point (i) above, as per hierarchy, was forwarded/marked for requisite action.
(iii). Name with designation with whom the said letter as per point (i) above is at present pending for requisite action.
(iv). Whether any Government servant(s) to whom the above letter as per point (1) above was marked for action have since been transferred/relinquished office for whatever reasons. If so, the name(s) with designation(s) of the Government servants posted in succession.Page 4 of 60
(vi). Whether any time period for final disposal of such issues as per letter as per point (i) above, has been specified. If so, a certified copy of such directive be provided. In case of the reply being negative, name with designation of Competitive Authority for acting on issues like delay in disposal/inaction etc.
(vii). Name with designation of the Dealing Assistant if any, to whom the said letter as per point (i) above was marked for action and not already covered under points (iii) and (iv) above. Certified copy each of all Note sheets in connection with above."
The CPIO/अनुभाग अ धकार (पी.आइ.सी.) transferred the RTI to the Nodal Officer (RTI) on 16.03.2023 under intimation to the complainant/appellant, by stating as under:
"चँू क आवेदन प आपके कायालय/ !वभाग से अ धक स"बं धत है , इस(लए आवेदन प ू ना *दान करने के (लए आपके कायालय/ !वभाग को अ,े!षत सच कया जा रहे है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(3) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135477 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.03.2023 CPIO replied on : 16.03.2023 First appeal filed on : 27.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.08.2023 Information sought:
The complainant/appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"(I). A copy of applicant's letter dated 19th Sept, 2022, receipt of which was darned vide No. E-2128570 dated 19-09-2022.Page 5 of 60
(ii). Name and designation of the Government servant to whom the letter as Per point (1) above was Put up/forwarded for further action.
(iii). Name(S) with designations of at Government servants including the last redolent to whom the said letter as per Point (I) above, as per hierarchy, was forwarded/marked for requisite action.
(iv). Name with designation with whom the said letter as per point (i) above Is at present pending for requisite action.
(v). Whether any Government servant(s) to whom the above letter as per point (i) above was marked for action have since been transferred/ relinquished office for whatever reasons. If so, the names) with designation(s) of the Government servants posted In succession.
(vi). Whether any time period for final disposal of such issues as per letter as per point (i) above, has been Specified. If so, a certified copy of such directive be Provided. In case of the reply being negative, name with designation of Competitive Authority for acting on issues like delay in disposal/inaction etc.
(vii). Information on the procedure applied for disposal of complaints/grievances lodged through hard physical copy such as per point (I) above.
(viii). Name with designation of the Dealing Assistant If any, to whom the said letter as per point (i) above was marked foe action and not already covered under Points (iii) and (iv) above. Certified copy each of all note sheets in connection with above.
(ix). Number of complaints/grievances similar to one as per point (I) above that are pending disposal along with the name and designation of Government servant to whom the same were marked for requisite action. "
The CPIO/अनुभाग अ धकार (पी.आइ.सी.) transferred the RTI to the Nodal Officer (RTI) on 16.03.2023 under intimation to the complainant/appellant, by stating as under:
Page 6 of 60"चँू क आवेदन प आपके कायालय/ !वभाग से अ धक स"बं धत है , इस(लए आवेदन प ू ना *दान करने के (लए आपके कायालय/ !वभाग को अ,े!षत सच कया जा रहे है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(4) CIC/LADOF/C/2023/134547 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.03.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 26.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.08.2023 Information sought:
The complainant/appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 14.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). A copy of applicant's letter dated 19th Sept, 2022, receipt of which was diarized vide No. E-2128529 dated 19-09-2022.
(ii). Name and designation of the Government servant to whom the letter as per point (i) above was put up/forwarded for further action.
(iii). Name(s) with designations of all Government servants including the last recipient to whom the said letter as per point (i) above, as per hierarchy, was forwarded/marked for requisite action.
(iv). Name with designation with whom the said letter as per point (i) above is at present pending for requisite action.
(v). Whether any Government servant(s) to whom the above letter as per point (1) above was marked for action have since been transferred/relinquished office for whatever reasons. If so, the name(s) with designation(s) of the Government servants posted in succession.Page 7 of 60
(vi). Whether any time period for final disposal of such issues as per letter as per point (i) above, has been specified. If so, a certified copy of such directive be provided. In case of the reply being negative, name with designation of Competitive Authority for acting on issues like delay in disposal/inaction etc.
(vii). Information on the procedure applied for disposal of complaints/grievances lodged through hard physical copy such as per point (1) above.
(viii). Name with designation of the Dealing Assistant if any, to whom the said letter as per point (i) above was marked for action and not already covered under points (iii) and (iv) above. Certified copy each of all Note sheets in connection with above.
(ix). Number of complaints/grievances similar to one as per point (1) above that are pending disposal along with the name and designation of.
Government servant to whom the same were marked for requisite action."
The CPIO/अनुभाग अ धकार (पी.आइ.सी.) transferred the RTI to the Nodal Officer (RTI) on 16.03.2023 under intimation to the complainant/appellant, by stating as under:
"चँू क आवेदन प आपके कायालय/ !वभाग से अ धक स"बं धत है , इस(लए आवेदन प ू ना *दान करने के (लए आपके कायालय/ !वभाग को अ,े!षत सच कया जा रहे है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
(5) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/161186 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022
First appeal filed on : Nil
Page 8 of 60
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.12.2022
Information sought:
The complainant/appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). Copy of the applicant's complaint dated 29th Aug, 2022.
(ii). Names with designations of all Government servants in this Section who received, perused, further marked and finally delivered to for requisite action.
(iii). Name and designation of the Dealing Assistant handling the above matter.
(iv). Certified copy of the Note-sheet evidencing initiation of the requisite action.
(v). Certified copy of the Office Memorandum/Letter written to other section forwarding the complaint for any information/requesting for some document /information as the case may be.
(vi). Certified copy of the Notification/Circular of the competent authority specifying the time period for completion of requisite action on complaint as per (i)."
(6) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104375 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 15.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 09.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). Certified copy of the complaint against Mrs. Nirmal Bhandari, Supdt., PS-I, stated to have been filed by this applicant. This allegation of filling the said complaint has been made by Mrs. Nirmal Bhandari, Supdt.PS-I, when this applicant met Shri N.K.Joshi, Dy.LDO acting as link officer to Shri Satish Kumar Singh, Dy.LDO-PS-I who was on leave. The government Page 9 of 60 servant named above made this allegation in the presence of the above link officer and Mrs. Raman Bala Mitter, Assistant In the Property Section-I, on 7th Sept, 2022, the last Public Meeting Day.
(ii). A certified copy each of any other complaint where any of the Government Servant posted with this public authority alleges that this applicant has filed a complaint against him/her."
(7) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104373 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.08.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 05.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 25.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"1.Contact details and Landline/Mobile Telephone No. of Mr. G.H. Ratra, a CSS officer who was earlier posted as Dy. L&DO in Property Section-I of this Office during 2010-2012. Mr. G.H. Ratra may since have retired from active service.
(a). No information is required here. However, It forms part of this application to facilitate the Information sought.
(b) The above Information is sought in public Interest for Initiating criminal Investigation and further action as the said officer had filed an affidavit giving false Information -a criminal act covered under the Indian Penal Code - in the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in reply to a writ petition. CPIO, In case of refusal, is requested to provide bonafide Information In justification of his refusal.
(c). In case of transfer of this application, simultaneous Intimation in terms of section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, Is requested.
(e). The information sought is not covered for exemption from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005 (Act No.22 of 2005).Page 10 of 60
(f). CPIO is also requested to provide unique I.D. No. quoting the above Application No. and date for future correspondence for mutual convenience."
(8) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106214 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.06.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 12.09.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 22.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). Certified copy of Note No. #3 (e-office) of L&DO as mentioned in para-2 on page No.137/N of the Note sheet pertaining to File No.6/21-23 Old D/S LPN, as the same was not earlier provided in the note sheets received vide your letter No. L&DO/PS-I/RTI/23 & 24/422 dated 20th May, 2022.
(ii). A certified copy each of Note No. #1, Note No #2, Note No. #4 to #14 as the Note sheets earlier provided as per (i) above have no details of the same.
(iii). A certified copy each of this office's letters dated 14.12.1992 and 24.06.1999, referred to in the penultimate para of Note sheet No.137/N of File No. as referred to in para (i) above.
(iv). A certified copy of the letter dated 21.01.2012 addressed to Commissioner, MCD, as stated in penultimate para on Note sheet No.137/N as per (iii) above.
(v). Information on the Court Case namely, Case Type, Case No. and Title of the case referred to as the basis of Delhi High Court Order restraining this Office from execution of Supplementary Lease Deeds as mentioned in penultimate para of the Note sheet No.137/N as referred to in para (i) above.Page 11 of 60
(vi). Certified copy of the Office Order as referred to in para-2 on Note sheet No.138/N of File No. as per para (i) above.
(vii). Information on the owner and the property No., address as per your record referred to as having carried out unauthorized construction in the common lavatory block as mentioned in the penultimate para of Note sheet No.137/N of the File No. as per para (i) above.
(viii). Certified copy of the letter written to Commissioner, MCD, requesting to get the unauthorized construction/squatters removed from the area as mentioned in para (vii) above.
(ix). Certified copy of the document/Line Plan relied upon for having arrived at the conclusion of encroachment on Public Land as mentioned in para-1 of Note sheet No.138/N of the File as referred to in (1) above.
(x). Certified copy of the document showing details of encroachment of the Public Land as mentioned in Line No.3 of para-2 on Note sheet page No. 138/N pertaining to property as per (1) above.
(xi). Information on relevance and legality of this office's letter dated 15.01.2013 today i.e., 10.05.2022, as referred in para-1 of the Note sheet page No.138 put up for requisite action on issues 1 to 5 mentioned on page No.137 in the context of all Office Orders issued thereafter.
(xii). Certified copy of the Office Order mentioned in penultimate sentence of para-2 on Note sheet page No. 138 of the property File as per para-(i) above, in which it is stated that the applicant had Interpreted the Office Order as per his convenience.
(xiii). Certified copy of the official document by whatever name it is called specifying the order in which the issues 1 to 5 mentioned on page No.137 of the Note sheet should be resolved.
(xiv). Copy of the applicant's letter dated 7/7/2017, referred to in first line of last para on Note sheet page No.138.
(xv). Information earlier requested vide para-3 of the applicant's letter dated 27-Oct, 2017 duly diarized vide Dy. No. 85840 dated 27/10/2017.
(The same has not been provided till date. Information sought vide Applicant's earlier RTI Application dated 12.03.2019 delivered under Computer Code No. 975 dated 12.03.2019 has also been refused. FAA's Page 12 of 60 Order on applicant's First Appeal dated 24th April, 2019, thereafter filed under Dy. No.131400 the same day, has also been pending till date).
(xvi). Information on the standard applied for arriving at the decision vide para-11 of Note sheet page No. 109/N on the applicant's letter dated 16-04-2018, (FR-02 Dy. No.434/PS-1 dated 18.04.2018 (p-413/c) and reminder dated 25th June, 2018, (FR- 04 Dy. No.975 dated 27.06.2018 (p-417/c) referred to on Note sheet page Nos.108/N that the reply vide these above letters was not found satisfactory.
(xvii). Whether the applicant, in his representation and reminder as mentioned in para (xvi) above, had raised any issue of law and/or on finance where the matter needed to be referred to the competent authority. If so, who is the competent authority for the handling these issues?
(xviii). Whether the Superintendent and the Dy. L&DO of the Property Section-I are duly authorized to concur with a decision as per para (xvi) above and need not apply their mind on such issue which is outside the domain of the scope of their powers/authority. If so, certified copy of the Order/ Letter of such Authorization.
(xix). Whether the Property Section-I has received any Policy decision on applicant's representation on the issue of alleged excess land in the tenement submitted vide letter dated 14/12/2021, and its receipt duly acknowledged vide Dy. No.221172 dated 16/12/2021. If so, a certified copy of the same be provided.
(xx). Information-certified copy of the details on discussion held as referred to in Note -17 on Note sheet pages 140 and 141 of the File as referred to in para-(i) above.
(xxi). Information-certified copy of the details on discussion held as referred to Note-18 on Note sheet page No. 141 as referred to above.
(xxii). Certified copy of all Note sheets after page No.141 and up to the last number on record as on the date of providing information in reply to this application."
(9) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106209 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 13 of 60RTI application filed on : 29.08.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 05.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 29.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"Name(s) and contact details of Competent Authority(ies) to receive representations, review/amend/modify/repeal Office Orders issued by this Office from time to time.
(a). No information is required here. However, it forms part of this application to facilitate the information sought.
(b) The above information is sought in public interest.
(c). The applicant, as per provisions of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, is not required to give any reason for the information requested. CPIO will appreciate that the information sought should be available to all affected citizens for compliance as per law and regulations.
(d). In case of transfer of this application, simultaneous intimation in terms of section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, is requested.
(e). The information sought is not covered for exemption from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005 (Act No.22 of 2005).
(f). CPIO is also requested to provide unique I.D. No. quoting the above Application No. and date for future correspondence for mutual convenience."
(10) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106211 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 24.11.2022
Page 14 of 60
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 12.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). Inspection of Guard's Files containing Office Order issued by the Co-
ordination Section of this Office from January, 1980, onwards.
(ii). Certified copy each of such Office Orders as may be required after the requisite inspection is properly felicitated."
(11) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106215 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.08.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 01.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 25.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"A certified copy each of all pages of the Visitors Register visiting on Public Meeting Days commencing from 30h March,2022, till the date of reply."
(12) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109235 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.09.2021 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 29.06.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2023 Page 15 of 60 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 11.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Whether the format of Lease And Conveyance Deed used at the time of first allotment on lease basis in case of Properties 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements Nos. from 6/33 to 6/64 both included in Lajpat Nagar Old (D/S IV (A-Q) (1-7) is the same as that of Properties No. 6/21 and 6/23. If not so, please provide a format each of the Lease And Conveyance Deeds used in case of these properties.
(ii). Undivided share in the brick built staircase and brick built lavatory block and the amount paid by each of these allottees of tenements as per
(i) above similar to the information stated in clause No.5 of the Lease Cum Conveyance Deed of Tenements No. 6/21 and 6/23.
(iii). Premium amount charged in cases of tenements as per (i) above similar to the one stated in Clause No. 6 of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of properties No.6/21 &6/23, separately for each of the above tenements.
(iv). Tenements numbers in each case with whom the parcel(s) of land the Government had agreed to jointly demise to the said allottees separately for each of these allottees.
(v). Information similar to the one given in clause No.8 - amount paid by each of allottees of above tenements of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of the tenements No.6/21 & 6/23.
(vi). Undivided share in the staircase and lavatory block of each allottee of above tenements as per (i) above and that of other allottees of the entire block, similar to the one covered under Clause No.10 of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of tenement No.6/21 & 6/23 above.
(vii). Information of the area of the tenement(s)demised to each such allottee jointly with others-number of tenements in the said building -
Block No.6 and the unit of measurement.
Page 16 of 60(viii). Whether there are any "Schedules" referred to in the said Lease And Conveyance Deeds. If so, numbers of such Schedules and the information on record in each of such Schedules for each of the above tenements.
(ix). Whether information on the length & breadth and / or the area of the parcel of land called Plot No. Block 6-IV and having the superstructure of the Block comprising 64 tenements is available on record. If so, the same is requested.
(x). Whether any of the above mentioned tenements as per (i) above, pursuant to Ministry's decision in 1992 and onwards, have been converted to freehold. If so, tenement property No. and the date of conversion-execution of conveyance deed of each such tenement is sought.
(xi). Whether the information requested above is available in compliance of the provisions of subsection (1) (a) of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, with regard to maintenance of records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form to facilitate the right to information. If not, details of law, rule, circular, notification, public notice etc., exempting this public authority from such mandatory compliance."
(13) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109236 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.09.2021 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 25.10.2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Whether the format of Lease And Conveyance Deed used at the time of first allotment on lease basis in case of Properties 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements Nos. 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, 6/7, 6/8, 6/9, 6/10, 6/11, 6/12, 6/13, 6/14, 6/15 and 6/16 in Lajpat Nagar Old (D/S IV (A-Q) Page 17 of 60 (1-7) is the same as that of Properties No. 6/21 and 6/23. If not so, please provide a format each of the Lease And Conveyance Deeds used in case of these properties.
(ii). Information on undivided share of each in the brick built staircase and brick built lavatory block and the amount paid by each of the allottees in (i) above similar to the information stated in clause No.5 of the Lease Cum Conveyance Deed of Tenements No. 6/21 and 6/23.
(iii). Information on premium amount similar to the one stated in Clause No. 6 of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of properties No.6/21 &6/23, separately for each of the above tenements.
(iv). Information on Tenements numbers with whom the parcel(s) of land the Government had agreed to jointly demise to the said allottees separately for each of these allottees.
(v). Information similar to the one given in clause No.8 amount paid by each of allottees of above tenements of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of the tenements No.6/21 & 6/23.
(vi). Information on undivided share in the staircase and lavatory block of each allottee of above tenements and that of other allottees of the entire block, similar to the one covered under Clause No.10 of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of tenement No.6/21 & 6/23 above.
(vii). Information of the area of the tenement(s)demised to each such allottee jointly with others-number of tenements in the said building -
Block No.6 to and the unit of measurement.
(viii). Whether there are any "Schedules" referred to in the said Lease And Conveyance Deeds. If so, numbers of such Schedules and the information on record In each of such Schedules for each of the above tenements.
(ix). Whether Information on the length & breadth and / or the area of the parcel of land called Plot No. Block 6-IV and having the superstructure of the Block comprising 64 tenements is available on record. If so, the same is requested.
(x). Whether any of the abovementioned tenements, pursuant to Ministry's decision in 1992 and onwards, have been converted to Page 18 of 60 freehold. If so, tenement property No. and the date of conversion- execution of conveyance deed of cach such tenement is sought.
(xi). Whether the information requested above is available in compliance of the provisions of subsection (1) (a) of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, with regard to maintenance of records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form to facilitate the right to information. If not, details of law, rule, circular, notification, public notice etc., exempting this public authority from such mandatory compliance."
(14) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109237 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.03.2021 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 07.04.2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.03.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Whether the format of Lease And Conveyance Deed used at the time of first allotment on lease basis in case of Properties 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements Nos. 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, 6/7, 6/8, 6/9, 6/10, 6/11, 6/12, 6/13, 6/14, 6/15 and 6/16 in Lajpat Nagar Old (D/S IV (A-Q) (1-7) is the same as that of Properties No. 6/21 and 6/23. If not so, please provide a format each of the Lease And Conveyance Deeds used in case of these properties.
(ii). Information on undivided share of each in the brick built staircase and brick built lavatory block and the amount paid by each of the allottees in (i) above similar to the information stated in clause No.5 of the Lease Cum Conveyance Deed of Tenements No. 6/21 and 6/23.
(iii). Information on premium amount similar to the one stated in Clause No. 6 of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of properties No.6/21 &6/23, separately for each of the above tenements.Page 19 of 60
(iv). Information on Tenements numbers with whom the parcel(s) of land the Government had agreed to jointly demise to the said allottees separately for each of these allottees.
(v). Information similar to the one given in clause No.8 amount paid by each of allottees of above tenements of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of the tenements No.6/21 & 6/23.
(vi). Information on undivided share in the staircase and lavatory block of each allottee of above tenements and that of other allottees of the entire block, similar to the one covered under Clause No.10 of the Lease and Conveyance Deed of tenement No.6/21 & 6/23 above.
(vii). Information of the area of the tenement(s)demised to each such allottee jointly with others-number of tenements in the said building -
Block No.6 to and the unit of measurement.
(viii). Whether there are any "Schedules" referred to in the said Lease And Conveyance Deeds. If so, numbers of such Schedules and the information on record In each of such Schedules for each of the above tenements.
(ix). Whether Information on the length & breadth and / or the area of the parcel of land called Plot No. Block 6-IV and having the superstructure of the Block comprising 64 tenements is available on record. If so, the same is requested.
(x). Whether any of the abovementioned tenements, pursuant to Ministry's decision in 1992 and onwards, have been converted to freehold. If so, tenement property No. and the date of conversion- execution of conveyance deed of cach such tenement is sought.
(xi). Whether the information requested above is available in compliance of the provisions of subsection (1) (a) of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, with regard to maintenance of records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form to facilitate the right to information. If not, details of law, rule, circular, notification, public notice etc., exempting this public authority from such mandatory compliance."
(15) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109238 Page 20 of 60 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 25.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 14.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). A certified copy of Document bearing No. A-37019/1/2018-Admn (L&DO)/ 282 dated 30th March, 2022.
(ii). Subject of the File No. A-37019/2018-Admn. (L&DO).
(iii). A certified copy each of the Note-sheets pertaining to the issuance of document at (i) above.
(iv). A certified copy each of all documents similar to the document as per item (i) above Issued during last twenty years, i.e. Issued from the year 2002 and onwards.
(v). Certified copy of the document similar to the (i) above pertaining to the Government Servants of the rank of Dy. Land & Development Officer."
(16) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110006 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.06.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 15.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.06.2022 seeking the following information:Page 21 of 60
"(i) Tenure(s) of posting(s) viz. dates of postings and dates of transfer of Mrs. Katyani Mathur, a government servant of this Office, in Property Section-I & II and CDN.
(The above information is not sought in any special form/format. The same may please be provided as maintained by this office in its record including personal file of the named government servant).
(17) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110007 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.06.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 15.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i) Tenure(s) of posting(s) viz. dates of postings and dates of transfer of Mr. Ajay Bajaj, a government servant of this Office, in Property Section-I & II and CDN.
(The above information is not sought in any special form/format. The same may please be provided as maintained by this office in its record including personal file of the named government servant)."
(18) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110008 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.06.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 15.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2023 Information sought:
Page 22 of 60The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i) Tenure(s) of posting(s) viz. dates of postings and dates of transfer of Mr. Vimal Chand, a government servant of this Office, in Property Section-I & II and CDN.
(The above information is not sought in any special form/format. The same may please be provided as maintained by this office in its record including personal file of the named government servant)."
(19) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110009 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.08.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 05.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 25.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). Certified copy of the Order/direction given by the L&DO on a representation dated 20th June, 2022, delivered vide Dy. No. 225360 dated 22nd June, 2022.
(ii). Name and designation of the Officer to whom the above representation was marked for requisite action.
(iii). Time frame specified under Manual of Office Procedures for disposal of representations as per point (i) above.
(iv). In case there is no time frame specified as per point (iii) above, information on Competent Authority for deciding the time frame issue."
(20) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121795 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 23 of 60RTI application filed on : 17.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 09.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 17.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). Total number of 'C' types Double Storey Tenements in various Rehabilitation colonies in Delhi and New Delhi under the jurisdiction of this Property Section.
(ii). Pursuant to the Ministry's Guidelines dated 11th Nov, 1983, total of number of Supplementary Lease Deeds towards allotment of additional land for construction of Kitchen, Bath and W.C. by every tenement holder executed till date.
(iii). Reasons for delay in execution of Supplementary Lease Deeds for all the tenements allottees.
(iv). Estimated time period for completion of execution of supplementary lease deeds for the tenements properties as per point No.(ii) above.
(v). Total number of Supplementary Lease Deeds executed so far towards allotment of additional common land in front of the tenements in compliance of Office Order No.13/2016 dated 29th Nov, 2016, as amended from time to time.
(vi). Estimated time period for completion of execution of Supplementary Lease Deeds as per point (v) above.
(vii). Total number of tenements properties where execution of Supplementary Lease Deeds towards allotment of additional land in the lavatory block in accordance with para-14 of Office Order No.2/2021 dated 29th Jan, 2021, is involved.
(viii).Numbers of applications for allotment as per point (vii) above received and total number of supplementary lease deeds executed till date.Page 24 of 60
(ix). Estimated time period by which this task of execution of supplementary lease deeds as per point (viii) shall be completed.
(x). Reasons for delay with respect to the task as per point No. (ix) above and estimated time for completion in respect of all the tenement properties.
(xi). Colony wise total number of tenements sealed for misuse of property for carrying on illegal commercial activity and encroachment on 8th March, 2018.
(xii). Colony wise and property number wise tenements which have since been desealed after completion of all the requisite formalities.
(xiii). Whether the Demand for recovery of misuse charges towards carrying on Illegal commercial activities has been formally raised. If so, property wise amount demanded and the total amount of misuse charges received so far till the date of reply.
(xiv). Whether there has been any default in payment of the above misuse charges by any of the tenement property owners. If so, necessary information on such property and the amount in arrears due be provided.
(xv). Whether the owners of tenements which have now been desealed asked to provide an undertaking not to repeat the misuse of carrying Illegal commercial activities once the said property is desealed. If so, a certified copy of such format be provided.
(xvi). Certified copy of the format of Supplementary Lease Deed being executed towards allotment of additional common land in front of the tenement.
(xvii). Certified copy of the format of Supplementary Lease Deed being executed towards allotment of small parcel of land in toilet/lavatory block in accordance with para-14 of Office Order No.2/2021 dated 29th Jan,2021.
(xviii). Certified copy of the Order/circular with regard to conversion to freehold of additional common land both in front of the tenement and in the rear/common lavatory block earlier decided to be allotted as per points (ii), (v) and (vii) above.Page 25 of 60
(xix). Certified copy of the Order pertaining to the decision with regard to recovery of misuse charges for carrying on illegal commercial activities where the property/ tenement has not been sealed and such activity has been allowed to continue."
(21) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124061 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.03.2021 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 07.04.2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.03.2021 seeking the following information:
"(1). Subject: Information on status, action pending etc., as per points in (6) below, in respect of Applicant's request vide No. PK/LDO/07/007 dated 30 July, 2020, and reminder vide No.PK/L&DO/12/002 dated 07 Dec, 2020, sent under Speed Post/Registered cover for requisite correction of discrepancies /errors in the Main Lease And Conveyance Deed and Supplementary Lease Deed pertaining to property No.6/23 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements in Lajpat Nagar Old (D/5)/ IV (A-Q) (1- 7) Information requested:
(a). Diary No. and date of receipt of the request dated 30th July, 2020.
(b). Whether any specific observation/opinion/direction were given/recorded by the Officer addressed to. If so, certified copy of the same. In case of mere initial and its forwarding to the concerned Section Head, information on the meaning/ action required as per prescribed manual/procedure.
(c). Information similar to (a) and (b) above pertaining to the reminder dated 07 Dec, 2020.Page 26 of 60
(d). Diary No(s), and date(s) the above two documents along with the name (s) and position(s) of all those government servants to whom above two documents ware further marked to upto the last government servant receiving the same and responsible for taking requisite action/putting up for final disposal.
(e). Whether any specific timeline, as per office manual/procedure/citizen's charter for lessees has been specified for disposal of such documents. If so, details thereof.
(f). Information on procedure adopted for monitoring delay in requisite action.
(g). Information on criteria applied where abnormal delay warranting disciplinary action has occurred. Name and contact details of the competent authority.
(h). Whether any letter(s) in reply to above request as per (a) above were sent prior to letter No. L&DO/PS-1/136 dated 18th Feb, 2021. If so, a certified copy each of same is requested.
(i). Whether Letter No. L&DO/PS-1/136 dated 18 Feb, 2021, is your final decision rejecting applicant's above request for correction of discrepancies /errors as pointed and listed in the Annexure thereto. If so, information on reasons thereof. Certified copy each of such documents relied upon is also requested,
(j).Certified copy each of the Note sheets pertaining to applicant's above letters in (3) (a) above.
(k). Information on competent authority for taking decision when there could be a legal issue where this applicant /allottee, vide his letter dated 16 April, 2016 and reminder dated 25th June, 2018, had referred to judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court-settling the issue of taking advantage of one's own mistake - in support of the his contention."
(22) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/127636 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 27 of 60RTI application filed on : 13.09.2021 CPIO replied on : 09.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 25.10.2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.06.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 13.09.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Whether this Office has revoked Its earlier decision vide Office Order No.12/2016 dated 27th Oct, 2016, stating that "Roof Rights do not vest with the Government". If so, certified copy of the relevant Office Order.
(ii). Whether the parent Ministry's Order vide No. J-20011/12/77/LD-II dated 14th Feb, 1992, pertaining to compulsory conversion of 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements in Rehabilitation colonies of Delhi and New Delhi has been revoked. If so, certified copy of the relevant Office Order.
(iii). Whether the decision of the parent Ministry's Order vide No. 1-
20011/12/77/LD-II dated 28-06-1999, thereby obviating the need for lessees of 'C' type tenements as per (II) above to individually apply for conversion to freehold was ever been revoked. If so, certified copy of the relevant Office Order.
(iv). Certified copy of Note sheets, Letters received, Letters issued, Circulars, Notices, Notifications or by whatever name the document(s) be called, forming background Information pertaining to the decision of calculating 100 FAR for calculation of misuse /occupation charges of ground floor "C' type tenements as mentioned in para-13 of Office Order No.2/2021 dated 29th Jan,2021. Is this decision also applicable to tenements in residential use as originally allotted?
(v). Relief to the ground floor 'C' type tenements owners consequent upon grant of additional benefit of FAR as per MPD-2021, as mentioned in para-13 of Office Order No.2/2021 dated 29th Jan,23021.
(vi). Whether the benefit of construction of Kitchen, Bath and W.C. for exclusive use by first floor C type tenement owner granted vide Ministry's Guidelines dated 11th Nov, 1983, have been revoked/withdrawn. If so, certified copy of the relevant Page 28 of 60 Office Order.
(vii). Whether the benefit of additional 250 FAR as per MPD-2021 to the owners of 'C' type Tenements is available in existing Blocks/towers earlier disallowed vide decision taken in the meeting of Sr. Officers of DDA under the, Chairmanship of Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi on 14.2.12, due to the issue of structural safety and already in Implementation w.e.f. 23.04.2012, and advertised in the newspapers for Information of public by the Director (Bldg.), DDA. If so, certified copy of the Order overruling this decision of Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi.
(viii). Whether this Office has permitted commercial activity in 'C' type Double Storey Tenements originally allotted with residential use. If so, certified copy of the relevant Office Order."
In case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/161186, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104375, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104373, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106214, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106209, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106211, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106215, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109235, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109236, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109237, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109238, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110006, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110007, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110008, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110009, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121795, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124061 and CIC/LADOF/A/2023/127636:
The CPIO furnished a common reply to all the pending RTI applications of the Complainant/ Appellant on 09.11.2022 by stating as under:
"Subject/ वषय: Repeated RTI applications/appeals being filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi - regarding.
Property no. 6/23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi was initially allotted to Sh. Ranbir Oberoi vide lease deed dated 06.08.1961. Sh. Ranbir Oberoi applied for allotment of additional land and he was permitted to convert the common lavatory block for his exclusive use on an area measuring 188 sq. feet on the rear set back shared 50:50 to ground floor and first floor vide supplementary lease dated 06.11.1990. Sh. Ranbir Oberoi expired on 22.05.2003 and the property in question stands substituted in the name of Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi vide letter dated 24.12.2010. Since then Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi, aged around Page 29 of 60 70 years has started filing RTI applications on the issues related to above property as well as on other related issues.
2. Now Shri P.K. Oberoi has become habitual in seeking information on various property related issues such as mutation, substitution conversion by filing different type of RTI applications and also on the issues related to postings and transfer of the officials in L&DO and functioning of the office. To quote a sample- During the period 2020-2022, a total of 59 RTI applications, 27 appeals with First Appellate Authority and 2 appeals with Second Appellate Authority (CIC) have been filed by Shri P.K. Oberoi under RTI Act, 2005.
3. It is noticed that Shri P.K. Oberoi seeks some information on any of his RTI application and based on the response received files different RTI applications seeking other related information from the same CPIO or other CPIOs of this Office. Most of the time he is not satisfied with the replies and hence files appeal with the First Appellate Authority. Repeated filing of RTI applications and appeals on the similar issues over the last 2-3 years which were responded by the CPIO, defeated the purpose of the RTI Act. Moreover dealing with his repeated RTI applications has a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. Further, it is also observed that Shri P.K. Oberoi has a tendency of complaining about the officials of this office when he is not satisfied with the response he wanted on his RTI applications. Shri P.K. Oberoi also visits this office on every Wednesday (Public Hearing day) and meets officials, asks numerous questions and also enquires about his RTI applications. Further, based on the information he gathers during his visit, he files complaints against the officials. There are several instances when Shri P.K Oberoi argues with the officers and demands to show official files and provide information on the spot. Thus he is not only wasting precious time of the Officials but also causing trouble for other visitors.
4. The Officers of this office were compelled to spend most of the time in answering repeated questions on the same subject matter asked from different angles; and about individual officers who, Shri P.K. Oberoi thinks, are responsible for his grievances. It is also observed that Shri P.K. Oberoi has filed RTI applications asking previous posting details of the officers of this Office, which do not have any larger public interest.
5. Further, the First Appellate Authority has given opportunity of personal hearing to Shri P.K. Oberoi atleast four times during the last one Page 30 of 60 year. However, Shri P.K. Oberoi is never satisfied and has not stopped filing repeated RTI applications/appeals.
6. In this regard, the Central Vigilance Commission vide Circular dated 10.03.2017 has stated that the CIC's decision dated 25.06.2014 in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC, GNCTD may be kept in view while processing RTI applications seeking information through repetitive RTI applications on similar issues/subjects:
L. No scope of repeating under RTI Act ii. Citizen has no Right to Repeat iii. Repetition shall be ground of refusal iv. Appeals can be rejected
7. Decisions/observations of CIC in some similar cases are as under: i. In the case of Shri Gopal Soni v The New India Assurance Company Ltd (dated 12.6.2008) the Commission observed that: "answering the elaborate and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic, imposes heavy cost on the public authority and tends to divert its resources, which brings it within the scope of section 7(9) of RTI Act."
ii. In the case of Shri Dinesh Kumar Kesarwani v. PIO, Allahabad Museum, on 24.04.2017, CIC has observed that:
a. The citizen has no right to repeat the same or similar or slightly altered information request under RTI Act, 2005, for which he already got a response.
b. Once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority.
c. Repetition shall be ground of refusal d. An applicant or appellant repeating the RTI application or appeal either once or multiple times, suppressing the fact of earlier application and receipt of the answer, the CPIO of public authority may reject it forthwith after intimating it along with reasons, appeals can be rejected. e. The First Appellate Authority and Commission may be right and reasonable to consider this as a ground for rejecting the first or second appeal, respectively among other reasons if any.
8. The universal principle of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res-
judicata, which in the RTI context means when an applicant uses an opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself. He cannot file another application for a bit or piece Page 31 of 60 which he forgot to ask, or not advised by his lawyer, or for any other reason. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that subject matter, in the first ever available opportunity. Even if he does not, it is presumed by law that he asked for that and was refused after due trial. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further the objectives of Right to Information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of questions being sought from same or different public authorities be stopped.
9. Keeping in view of the above facts and directions of Central Vigilance Commission and decisions of Central Information Commission on repeated/ similar RTI applications, it has been decided to reject the repeated RTI applications/appeals of Shri P.K. Oberoi pending in this Office and also to reject his future RTI applications/appeals.
10. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed separate First Appeals in each of the above-mentioned cases dated 07.04.2021, 29.06.2022, 12.09.2022, 25.10.2021, 15.07.2022, 25.08.2022, 01.11.2022, 05.11.2022 and 15.11.2022. The FAA's order in each case is not on record.
(23) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106205 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.04.2021 CPIO replied on : 02.08.2021 First appeal filed on : 11.08.2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.04.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Name(s) of Surveyor(s)/ Inspector(s) who, pursuant to direction vide para-4 of the Order dated 13th July, 2010 of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition W.P. (C) Nó. 8113/2009 titled as Sardar Gurvinder Singh versus Union of India and Others in Delhi High Court, had surveyed alleged encroachment on Public Land and unauthorized construction by owners Page 32 of 60 of various 'C' Type double Storey Tenements in 'M' Block of Rehabilitation Colony of LAJPAT NAGAR OLD (D/S) IV (A-Q) (1-7).
(ii). Property Number(s) of each such ground floor properties as per para
(i) above where the alleged encroachment of Public land was found on survey/inspection and taken on record.
(iii). Certified copies of documents required if any, will be intimated on receipt above information."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.08.2021 stating as under:
"1 to 3.As per para 4 of order dated 13/07/2010, there is no order to inspect the properties. Accordingly, question of Survey reports does not arise."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2021. The FAA order is not on record.
(24) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110010 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.11.2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 09.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.02.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 30.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"(i). A certified copy each of Note-sheets presumably bearing No.146 onwards i.e. containing information on the deliberations/matters put up for requisite action after Note No.# 25 dated 13/06/2022, and upto the date of reply to this RTI application in respect of File pertaining to applicant's property 'C' Type Tenement No.6/23, Lajpat Nagar Old (D/S) IV (A-Q) (1-7)."Page 33 of 60
Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(25) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121794 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.01.2022 CPIO replied on : 15.03.2022 First appeal filed on : 18.04.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 25.01.2022 seeking the following information:
"A certified copy each of all Note-sheets upto the date of reply to this application in respect of Property Ground Front Tenement No. 612L,'C Type Lajpat Nagar Old (DlS)|IV/(A-O (1-7)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.03.2022 stating as under:
"The information will be supplied on receipt of documents to prove your stake in the property being third party information under section 8(1) (J) of RTI, 2005,"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
(26) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124059 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.12.2021 CPIO replied on : 07.01.2022 First appeal filed on : 11.03.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 Page 34 of 60 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 23.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Whether the owners of Property Tenement No. 6/22 LAJPAT NAGAR OLD (D/S) IV (A-Q) (1-7) in pursuance of allotment of additional land pursuant to Ministry's Guidelines dated 11th Nov, 1983, have applied for execution of Supplementary Lease Deed. If so, date of receipt of application and present status such as date on which the requisite supplementary lease deed has been executed.
(ii). Whether the owners of Property Tenement No. 6/22 LAJPAT NAGAR OLD (D/S) IV (A-Q) (1-7) in pursuance of allotment of additional land pursuant to Office Order No. 2/2021 dated 29th Jan, 2021, have applied for execution of Supplementary Lease Deed. If so, date of receipt of application and present status such as date on which the requisite supplementary lease deed has been executed."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.01.2022 stating as under:
"(i)& (ii).The information will be supplied on receipt of documents to prove your stake in the property being third party information under section 8(1) (J) of RTI, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
(27) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124060 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.12.2021 CPIO replied on : 07.01.2022 First appeal filed on : 11.03.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 Information sought:
Page 35 of 60The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 23.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"(i). Whether the owners of Property Tenement No. 6/22 LAJPAT NAGAR OLD (D/S) IV (A-Q) (1-7) in pursuance of allotment of additional land pursuant to Ministry's Guidelines dated 11th Nov, 1983, have applied for execution of Supplementary Lease Deed. If so, date of receipt of application and present status such as date on which the requisite supplementary lease deed has been executed.
(ii). Whether the owners of Property Tenement No. 6/22 LAJPAT NAGAR OLD (D/S) IV (A-Q) (1-7) in pursuance of allotment of additional land pursuant to Office Order No. 2/2021 dated 29th Jan, 2021, have applied for execution of Supplementary Lease Deed. If so, date of receipt of application and present status such as date on which the requisite supplementary lease deed has been executed."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.01.2022 stating as under:
"(i)& (ii). The information will be supplied on receipt of documents to prove your stake in the property being third party information under section 8(1) (J) of RTI, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
(28) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/127635 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.12.2021 CPIO replied on : 24.01.2022 First appeal filed on : 04.02.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.03.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.06.2023 Information sought:
The appellant/complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 23.12.2021 seeking the following information:Page 36 of 60
"(a). Subject of Information: Complaint dated 11th Sept, 2021, (Dy. No. 219133 dated 14th Sept, 2021) and the reminder dated 24th Nov, 2021, (Dy. No. 220613 dated 24th Nov, 2021).
(b). Information sought:--
(i). Name and designation of the Officer/Official receiving the above complaint and the reminder.
(ii), Certified copy of the forwarding OM/Letter in case the same has been forwarded to some other Government Officer/Department.
(iii).Status of requisite enquiry/investigation in case the same were being looked into by the receiving Officer vide point (i) above.
(iv). Whether any time period for completion of the enquiry/investigation into the complaint as per point (i) above is prescribed. If so, certified copy of the same is requested.
(v). Certified copy of the Enquiry /Investigation Report. In case it is refused, information on the grounds thereof."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 24.01.2022 stating as under:
"I am to invite a reference to your RTI application dated 23rd December, 2021 regarding dereliction of duty, misconduct etc. committed by Shri K. S. Rana, Senior Surveyor, L&DO during the inspection of 'C' type property in Lajpat Nagar in 2010 and to inform that the matter is under examination."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 25.03.2022, held as under.
"I am to invite a reference to your first appeal dated 04.02.2022, u/s 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 against CPIO's reply vide letter No. A- 42021/14/2017-Admn(L&DO)/70 dated 24.01.2022 regarding dereliction of duty, misconduct etc. allegedly committed by Shri K. S. Rana, Sr. Surveyor, L&DO during the inspection of 'C' type property 6/23 old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar in 2010.Page 37 of 60
2. I have gone through the matter and CPIO is hereby directed to convey the administrative decision in this regard within next 15 days. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(29) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/140886 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.02.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 13.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.10.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). A copy each of 59 RTI Applications, 27 First Appeals and 2 Second Appeals referred to in para-2 of Order No.103/RTI/CDN/2022/384 dated 9th Nov, 2022, of this public authority.
(ii). A certified copy each of the Notices intimating date and time of hearing of first appeals as referred to para-5 of same Order as per (i) above.
(iii). A certified copy each of Office Memorandums, Note-sheets forming part of the record towards action leading to issuance of Order referred to in (i) above.
(iv). A certified copy each of the Order/direction and Note-sheet(s) pertaining to action initiated on applicant's reply dated 02-Dec-2022, (C.R. Dy. No.230160 dated 07-Dec-2020).
(v). Receipt No. and date on which the letter dated 02-Dec-2022, as per
(iv) above was marked to the concerned Government official for initiating action
(vi). Name with designation of the Government official to whom the letter dated 02-Dec-2022, as per (iv) above was marked for requisite action.
(vii). Certified copy each of the document/Note-sheet evidencing action initiated on applicant's letter dated 10th Dec, 2022, (C.R. Dy. No.230287 Page 38 of 60 dated 12th Dec, 2022), E mail dated 21st Dec, 2022, addressed to Shri D. K. Barnwal, Dy. L&DO, with a copy each to L&DO and Shri Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L&DO/CPIO, and letter dated 17th Jan, 2023, (C.R Dy.
No.231299 dated 18th Jan-2023). In case of a reply to any or all points as above in the negative, name with designation of the Government official/officer responsible for delay along with information on reasons for this delay."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(30) CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146940 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30.03.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 20.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.12.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 30.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). Inspection of all parts/volumes of File containing minutes of the weekly meetings also called Review Meetings held by the Land & Development Officer with all Dy. L&DOs and/or other officers of this Office for the period April, 2012 and onwards upto 31st March, 2023.
(Please inform three different dates other than Public Meeting Days for carrying out the requisite inspection. As per Rule No. 4(f) of Right to Information Rules, 2012, no fee for inspection of records for the first hour is payable, and Rs.5/- for each subsequent hour will be paid through Indian Postal Order at the time inspection is facilitated).
(ii). Certified copies of the documents required will be filed as soon as inspection as per (i) above is facilitated and satisfactorily completed. (CPIO's attention is drawn to the Section-7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, specifying the time period for completion of facilitating the inspection Page 39 of 60 and providing the certified copies of the documents requested thereafter)."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(31) CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146942 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.08.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 09.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.12.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). A certified copy each of all the documents viz. Note-sheets, Office Memorandum, Letters written and received if any, Circular, Notifications, Plans etc., in connection with the action initiated towards preparation and final approval of Building Plan and regularization by the local body for the area as referred to in paragraph-14 of the Office Order No.2/2021 dated 29th Jan, 2021, pertaining to issues of 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements in Rehabilitation Colony in Delhi and New Delhi.
(ii). Name(s) with designation(s) of all Government servants earlier posted and presently transferred and incumbents as per official hierarchy having the responsibility as per query No. (i) above.
(iii). Name(s) with designations of Government servants authorized to receive complaints and initiate disciplinary action in case no action has been taken in the matter covered under query (i) above.
(iv). Information on difficulties being encountered in execution of the decision as per para-14 of the Office Order per query (i) above."Page 40 of 60
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(32) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148267 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.06.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 09.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.12.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 09.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). A certified copy each of all the documents viz. Note-sheets, Office Memorandum, Letters written and received if any, Circular, Notifications, Plans etc., in connection with the action initiated towards preparation and final approval of Building Plan and regularization by the local body for the area as referred to in paragraph-14 of the Office Order No.2/2021 dated 29th Jan, 2021, pertaining to issues of 'C' Type Double Storey Tenements in Rehabilitation Colony in Delhi and New Delhi.
(ii). Name(s) with designation(s) of all Government servants earlier posted and presently transferred and incumbents as per official hierarchy having the responsibility as per query No. (i) above.
(iii). Name(s) with designations of Government servants authorized to receive complaints and initiate disciplinary action in case no action has been taken in the matter covered under query (i) above.
(iv). Information on difficulties being encountered in execution of the decision as per para-14 of the Office Order per query (i) above."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(33) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148268 Page 41 of 60 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03.08.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 11.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.12.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 03.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"(i). Inspection of file containing all documents pertaining to Writ Petition W.P.(C) No. 12420/2022, titled as Shivom Asthana versus Union of India and Anr. filed before Delhi High Court at New Delhi.
(ii). Inspection of file containing all documents pertaining to Writ Petition
- W.P.(C) 12580/2022 titled as Amit Gupta versus Land & Development Office & Ors.
(iii). Inspection of file containing all documents pertaining to Writ Petition W.P.(C) 13366/2022 Tathagat Mewara versus Union Of India And Anr.
(iv). Certified copies of the documents as required after the requisite inspection is facilitated."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
(34) CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148269 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.08.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 03.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.12.2023 Page 42 of 60 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 25.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"(a). Certified copy of Order/direction given by addressee officer on applicant's letters No. PK/L&DO/19/23 & PK/L&DO/19/27 dated 9th April, 2019, and 12th April, 2019 respectively (Receipts acknowledged vide CR Dy. No.111108 & 111195 dated 10th April, 2019, and 12th April, 2019 respectively).
(b). Certified copy of the OM issued if any, forwarding the above letters to the concerned Departments seeking requisite opinion.
(c). Certified copy of replies received to the above OM as per point (b) above, if any.
(d). Information on grounds in case a decision was taken not to take any action on letters as per point (a) above.
(e). Information on the Government interest affected, if any.
(f). Name with designation of the Dealing Assistant responsible for putting up the matter for taking requisite action on letters as per point
(a) above.
(g). Certified copy of Note-sheets in confirmation of the action proposed/taken on the letters as per point (a) above towards disposal."
Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
In case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/140886, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146940, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146942, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148267, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148268, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148269:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with no response either from the CPIO or from the FAA, the complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.Page 43 of 60
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO along with Mr. Dinesh Kumar Lakhumna, Dy. L& DO/CPIO, Mr. M K Gupta, Dy. L & DO/CPIO (in case File No. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/161186 only), Mr. Ranjan Singh, Consultant and Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Consultant, L& DO office, MoHUA, New Delhi present in person.
A combined written submission dated 06.12.2024 for all the instant cases has been filed by the Complainant/Appellant, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below, for ready reference:
"...2. In this connection, this citizen while reiterating, pleads as under:
(a). That all citizens, as per Section-3 of the RTI Act, 2005, irrespective of status viz. over-privileged, privileged and under-privileged, be equally treated.
(b). That there is disregard in implementation of mandate of Section-4 ibid by various CPIOs, of public authority--Land & Development Office, an attached office in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, already named in the aforementioned complaints and appeals. This is in spite of Guidelines issued by DoPT vide Office Memorandums F. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15-
April, 2013, No.1/34/2013-IR dated 29th June, 2015, No.1/1/2013-IR dated 9th July, 2015, No.1/34/2013 dated 30th June, 2016, No.1/6/2011-IR dated 5th/7th Nov, 2019, No.1/6/2011 dated 10th July, 2020, and 14th Sept, 2022. Besides, this citizen vide his letter dated 24-April-2023, brought the matter to the notice of these CPIOS. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, vide its Order dated 17-August-2023, in Writ Petition Civil No. 990 of 2021, titled Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India, directed Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section-4 of the Act, as per directions in this Order. Thereafter, this citizen vide his letter dated 11- Page 44 of 60 March-2024, also brought it to the notice of CIC. There is, however, no progress in the matter.
(c). That CPIOs have also not been respecting the provisions of Section-5 ibid in letter and spirit.
(d). That among the stakeholders under the RTI Act, 2005, viz. the citizen as applicant/ appellant/complainant, the CPIO(s), the FAA(s) and the Commission, it is the citizen who ultimately suffers injury for no fault of his/her but is hardly compensated for the detriment suffered including due to loss of precious time and avoidable expenditure when compelled to approach Commission.
(e). That, as is evident from record, the complainant, due to blatant display of lethargy in persistent refusal by Respondents to discharge their duties assigned under the RTI Act, 2005, has been dragged to this Commission.
3. That it is evident from record that the concerned Government officers designated CPIO and FAA under the RTI Act, have displayed steadfast misconduct-shirking responsibility and flagrant violation of:
(i) own Office Order No.25/93 dated 29.09.1993, pertaining to Greater openness in the Government functioning,
(ii) commitment as per the Citizen Charter -all grievances, and complaints will be acknowledged within 7 days and a speaking reply given to the lessee within 30 days,
(iii) Service (Conduct) Rules,
(iv) The Right to Information Act, 2005, provide the information sought and adjudicate first appeal if necessary, within the time periods specified under the RTI Act, 2005, and
(v) criminal offence of disobeyance of direction of law the RTI Act, 2005, -
covered vide Section-166 of the Indian Penal Code (Section-166- Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to Page 45 of 60 the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple Imprisonment for a term which .................
4. That CPIOS, as per principles of natural justice, be put to stricter proof that they had replied to the RTI Applications as per aforementioned complaints and appeals within the time period specified under Section-7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, providing the information sought, in compliance of the Act.
5. That FAAs, as per principles of natural justice, be put to stricter proof that they had issued First Appeal Orders adjudicating the respective first appeals as per aforementioned complaints and appeals within the time period specified under Section-19 (6) of the RTI Act, 2005, in compliance of the Act.
6. That the complainant has suffered harassment, mental torture and incurred unnecessary expenditure solely caused due to misconduct of aforementioned public servants.
7. That the complainant, in addition to judgments of High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India imposing penalties already relied upon in the complaints and appeals as above, in the interest of justice, also requests to consider similar other Orders viz.:
(a) dated 28.04.2009 of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 3845/2007 titled as Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission,
(b) dated 24-Aug-2009 also of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Order W.P.(C) No.19122/2006 titled as Vivek Mittal vs B.P. Srivastava &Ors
(c) dated 04-Aug-2011, also of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 7232/2009 titled as J.P. Agrawal vs Union of India and Ors,
(d) dated 31-Aug-2016, in the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side in Writ Petition WP 27355 (W) of 2012 titled Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State of West Bengal & Ors., Page 46 of 60
(e) CIC Orders dated 15-Jun-2020, and 14-Jan-2021, In CIC/BKOIN/C/2018/151413, CIC/BKOIN/C/2018/151460, CIC/BKOIN/C/2018/151458, CIC/BKOΙΝ/C/2018/151456 &CIC/BKOIN/C/2018/151457 in the matter of Pooja V. Shah, Complainant vs CPIO: Bank of India, Andheri Large Corporate Branch, Andheri, Mumbai, Respondents."
A combined written submission dated 06.12.2024 filed by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below, for ready reference:
"Subject:
Notices for hearing at CIC No. CIC/MOHUA/LADOF/A/2023/135478, 135479,135477,104375,106214, 106209, 106211, 106215, 109235,109236, 109237, 110009, 110010,121795,121794,124059, 124060, 124061, 127636, 134547, 140886, 146940, 146942, 148267, 148268, 148269 dated 20.11.2024 on Various RTI applications/Appeal filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Mr Vinod Kumar Tiwari at venue Room No 313, 3rd Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 on 16.12.2024 at 12.40 PM, 12.45 PM,12.50 PM, 01.00 PM, 01.10 PM, 01.20 PM, 01.25 PM, 01.30 PM. 01.35 PM, 01.40 PM, 01.45 PM, 02.10 PM, 02.15 PM, 02.20 PM, 02.25 PM, 02.30 PM, 02.35 PM, 02.40 PM, 02.50 PM, 02.55 PM 03.00 PM, 03.05 PM. 03.10 PM, 03.15 PM, 03.20 PM, 03.25 PM.
Ref:CIC/MOHUA/LADOFA/2023/135478,135479,135477,104375,106214,10 6209, 106211,106215, 109235, 109236, 109237, 110009, 110010, 121795,121794, 124059,124060,124061, 127636, 134547, 140886, 146940, 146942, 148267, 148268, 148269 all are dated 20.11.2024 Sir, I am to refer to Notices for hearing from Hon'ble CIC as quoted in subject each dated 20.11.2024 (as referred in the attached Appendix).
2. Briefly, Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi, the applicant is associated with this office w.r.t. his property no 6/23, Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Page 47 of 60 Delhi which was initially allotted to Sh. Ranbir Oberoi vide lease deed dated 06.08.1961. Shri Ranbir Oberoi applied for allotment of additional land and he was permitted to convert the common lavatory block for his exclusive use on an area measuring 188 sq. feet on the rear set back shared 50.50 to ground floor and first floor vide supplementary lease dated 06.11.1990. Sh. Ranbir Oberoi expired on 22.05.2003 and the property in question stands substituted in the name of Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi vide letter dated 24.12.2010. Since then Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi, aged around 70 years has started filing RTI applications on the issues related to above property as well as on other related issues.
3. It is humbly submitted that the RTI Act 2005 is to obtain information related to an individual or to some extent where larger public interest is involved. However sometimes a few persons misuse this Act. It is observed that Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi has become habitual in seeking information on various issues like mutation, substitution conversion by filling different types of RTI applications and also on the issues related to posting and transfer of the officials in L&DO and functioning of the office and also many other issues/ procedure/ cases of this office which are not directly related to him.
4 Keeping in view of the above facts and directions of Central Vigilance Commission and decisions of Central Information Commission on repeated/ similar RTI application, it has been decided to reject the repeated RTI applications/ appeals of Shri P.K. Oberoi pending in this Office and also to reject his future RTI applications/ appeals. An order to this effect was issued with the approval of the Competent Authority vide order no. 103/RTI/CDN/2022/384 dated 9th November, 2022 (copy attached as Annexure -1).
5. It is mentioned that before issuing the above order (referred in para 4 above). replies to his 34 RTI applications and 04 Appeals had been given and 03 RTI applications have been replied even after issuing the above order (Copies attached as Annexure-II). However, this office has limited resources and manpower. Against a sanctioned strength of 125, only 69 are in position.
Page 48 of 606 Apart from replies of RTI applications (as mention in para 5 above), he has been given several opportunities for meeting with the undersigned/ other officers and also at the level of HOD/ Land & Development Officer, 1"
Appellate Authority (even after issuing of order dated 9.11.2024). However, Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi is never satisfied and has not stopped filing repeated RTI applications/appeals.
7. The above facts/circumstances are submitted before Hon'ble CIC for kind consideration.
Further, a written submission dated 13.12.20224 has been filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Lakhumna, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below, for ready reference:
"Sir, Kindly refer to the following CIC Notice Nos. for hearing before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari on 16.12.2024 in connection with RTI/Appeal filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi. The details are as under:
SI CIC No. and date RTI Date & Remarks
No. application Time of
No. and hearing.
date
(i) CIC/MoHUA/A/2023/ No. 039 16.12.2024 Copy of the reply to
104373 dated 20.11.2024 dated at 01.05 RTI furnished vide this
25.08.2022 Ρ.Μ. office letter dated
06.12.2024 is attached
as Annexure 1.
(ii) CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109238 No. 036 16.12.2024 Copy of the reply to
dated 20.11.2024 dated at 01.50 RTI furnished vide this
14.07.2022 P.M. office letter dated
06.12.2024 is attached
as Annexure II.
(iii) CIC/MoHUA/A/2023/ No. 028 16.12.2024 The applicant sought
110006 dated 20.11.2024 dated at 01.55 similar information
07.06.2022 Ρ.Μ. vide his RTI application
(iv) CIC/MoHUA/A/2023/ No. 029 16.12.2024 No. 054 dated
110007 dated 20.11.2024 dated at 02.00 13.09.2021 and reply
07.06.2022 P.M. furnished to the said
Page 49 of 60
(v) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/ No. 030 16.12.2024 RTI vide this office
110008 dated 20.11.2024 dated at 02.05 letter dated
07.06.2022 P.M. 14.10.2021 &
09.12.2021. Once
again, the information
sought by applicant is
similar/ repeated
nature vide his RTI
application Nos. 028,
029 & 030 dated
07.06.2022 and reply
furnished to the said
RTIs vide this office
letter dated
10.12.2024. Copies of
replies are attached as
Annexure III.
(vi) CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/ No. 069 16.12.2024 Reply to RTI/Appeal to
127635 dated 20.11.2024 dated at 02.45 the applicant was
23.12.2021 P.M. furnished on
24.01.2022,
25.03.2022 &
04.04.2022. Further,
reply to the notice is
forwarded vide our
letter No. A-
43/31/2021-
Admn(LDO)-UD/1030
dated 11.12.2024.
Copies are attached as
Annexure IV.
Annexure I.
The Officer was transferred from this office w.e.f. 13.04.2011 to Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs.
Annexure II.
(i) Certified copy of Document is annexed.
(ii) Grant of Honorarium to the staff of L&DO.
(iii) Certified copy of Note-Sheet annexed.
(iv) Information as desired would result in diversion of resources
disproportionately.
(iv) Same as in Sl No. (i)
Annexure III.
Page 50 of 60
...2. It is informed that no such compiled information as desired by the applicant is maintained in this office and any attempt to compile the same would result in diversion of resources disproportionately. Hence the desired information cannot be furnished under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. T is further informed the Mrs. Katyani Mathur has retired from Government Service on attaining the age of superannuation in September, 2024.
Annexure IV.
...2. Following are submitted herewith for information of Hon'ble Information Commissioner-
(i) The reply to RTI application No. 69 dated 23.12.2021 of Sh Pramod Kumar Oberoi has already been provided on 24-01.2022 (Copy attached)
(ii) Against the reply, the applicant filed first appeal on 04.02.2022. The First Appellate Authority vide order No. A/42021/26/2021-
Admn(L&DO)-UD/255 dated 25.03.2022 directed CPIO to convey administrative decision in this regard within next 15 days. (copy attached)
(iii) In compliance of Appellate Authority order dated 25.03.2022, CPIO provided the available information vide order No. A/42021/26/2021- Admn(L&DO)-UD/298 dated 04.04.2022. (copy attached).."
The Complainant/Appellant narrated the factual background of these cases by stating chronologically that the property in question is a government-built one constructed in early 1950s, with the purpose to rehabilitate displaced persons from erstwhile West Punjab now called Pakistan during partition in 1947. Initial allotment of all such properties was on rent basis. Later, Government of India decided to lease them on perpetual lease for 99 years. The Lease and Conveyance Deed for the complainant/appellant's property was executed in 1961 in the name of his late father. For the conveyance Deed, all information such as name of the lessee, father's/husband's name of the lessee, Tenement No. allotted and Block No., colony's name, constructed area of the tenement(s) allotted, premium charged, exclusive rights, joint rights with lessees of adjoining/adjacent tenements, rights about common use etc., were filled in by the public authority-the Lessor. Later on, these tenements were constructed having two different areas viz. 255.75 sq. ft. and 287.5 sq. ft approx. without disclosing the same to the allottees. The cost charged per tenement as the premium etc., were the total cost of parcel of land called plot over which the Page 51 of 60 superstructure comprising a number of tenements were constructed and the total cost of construction equally proportionately charged from all the allottees of tenements in a particular Block. The cost of these tenements thus varied from block to block depending upon the time of construction etc. These tenements were called Double Storey tenements and the rights between ground floor and first floor lessees were 50:50 basis.
In the instant cases, two adjoining tenements on the ground floor based on the criteria-number of family members out of 64 in a block were allotted to appellant's father since deceased. Thereafter, appellant's name was substituted as lessee in the public authority's record on 24.12.2010. Similarly, in the case of other tenement, the complainant's/appellant's younger brother's name was substituted in the MOHUA's record in 2013. Later, on his demise on 02.01.2020, his wife's name was added as the substituted lessee. During 2010 and 2011, the overseer/surveyor while inspecting the complainant's/appellant's property as per lease terms, every time ignored measuring the actually constructed area vis-a-vis the one shown in the Lease Deed. On 04.01.2017, the surveyor/overseer inspecting the property, measured and recorded his observation that the area recorded in the Lease Deed as 255.75 sq. ft. was incorrect as against the constructed area of 287.5 sq. ft. approx. Complainant/Appellant, thereafter, filed his request dated 08.02.2017 receipt duly diarized vide Dy. No.78681 the same day, for issuance of requisite corrigendum. Instead, an alleged untenable demand dated 06.10.2017 was raised stating that the area of the tenement in the lessee's possession was in excess than shown in the lease deed along with payment of compound interest falsely alleging the lessee had defaulted in its payment whereas this alleged demand was never raised before. The interest demanded was for the period 8th Aug 1961, the date of execution of lease deed till the date of demand notice i.e. 6th Oct, 2017. The Complainant/Appellant challenged it vide his letter dated 27.10.2017 and sought pertinent information in justification of this alleged demand which has not been provided till date. As regards hurdles created by the Government servants of the Respondent public authority to harass the public, the complainant/Appellant filed multiple representations on CPGRAM portal and personally handed over a copy of the same to the FAA/L&DO in a meeting held in her office on 3rd Dec, 2021. Instead of taking steps for efficiently resolving the matter, the FAA appears to have connived directing issuance of the illegal Blanket Order rejecting all Page 52 of 60 pending RTI applications and First Appeals. These Complaints and second appeals are a consequence due to obstructing transparency through malafide attempts by unscrupulous Government servants encouraging corrupt practices by creating hurdles.
The Complainant/Appellant further contended that neither the final outcome on his complaints under reference have been informed to him till date nor his issue regarding conversions of his property from lease hold to freehold has been addressed by the MOHUA despite multiple reminders and follow-ups. Such circumstances made the appellant (being around 75 years old) to run from pillar to post at this tender old age from the past more than 10 years and causes agony and harassment for which the complainant/appellant vehemently urged the Commission to direct the Respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against each case for hardships suffered by him. In support of his arguments, he invited the attention of the Commission towards certain citations/case laws, which are taken on record.
While summing up his arguments, the Complainant/Appellant narrated the sum and substance of his cases being deficiency in services on the part of Respondent public authority by not deciding his representations on following issues for which he made several visits and reminded them.
1. Necessary amendments/corrections in the Lease Deed with respect to variation in the measured area of the property vis-à-vis the one given in the Lease Deed.
2. Withdrawal of arbitrary and illegal demand notice issued in 2017.
3. Drop the arbitrary demand of huge sum through the demand notice of 2017 which levied compound rate of interest since 1961 without any prior notice for last five and a half decades.
4. Conversion of his Lease Deed to free hold property as per Government Policy.
5. Allotment of additional land in front corner of toilet area as committed by the Government.
6. Allotment of additional area for corner plot as his property is a corner one.
Page 53 of 60Complainant/Appellant again prayed to the Commission that his prayer for award of compensation be taken into consideration for getting justice in the matter.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/CPIO by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that the complainant/appellant is a habitual RTI applicant who has filed numerous RTI applications in previous occasions seeking similar RTI applications which were replied to, however, to take the revenge from MoHUA he kept on filing various new RTI application against the reply of his previous RTI application just to clog the working system of the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, after taking into account the conduct of the Complainant/Appellant a common order has been passed by the then CPIO, Mr. Niranjan Kumar Joshi, Dy. Land & Development Officer on 09.11.2022 by rejecting all the pending RTI applications of the Complainant/Appellant. As regards the property issue, the Respondent apprised the Commission that his matter is under consideration and final decision is yet to be taken by the competent authority. During the hearing, he prayed the Commission to advise the complainant/appellant to limit his claim for information precisely to enable the CPIO to facilitate the requested information.
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding status of reply in case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/140886, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146940, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146942, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148267, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148268, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148269, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO tendered his apology by explaining that no response was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice.
Decision The above-mentioned bunch of Complaints and Second Appeals of Mr. Pramod Kumar Oberoi have been heard simultaneously and disposed through common order for the sake of brevity as these relates to similar issues raised by him against same Respondent Public Authority.
In case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135478, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135479, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/135477 and CIC/LADOF/C/2023/134547:
Page 54 of 60The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that the core contention raised in these matters by the Complainant/Appellant was non-receipt of final action taken report from the Nodal RTI officer to whom RTI applications has been transferred at the relevant time. Here, the Commission would like to counsel the parties that instant matters are complaints filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864.
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission at the outset is unhappy with the fact that no reply has ever been provided by the concerned transferee Nodal CPIO to whom RTI applications have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Further, no cogent explanation for such violation/delay has been tendered by the Respondent during the hearing. Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the concerned transferee CPIO for neither providing any reply against the instant RTI Applications. The act of the concerned CPIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission.
In view of the above, inaction on his part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to the concerned the then transferee CPIO (at the relevant time), and the present CPIO, Mr. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO. The CPIOs shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the CPIOs should reach the Commission within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/CPIO, MOHUA should ensure service of this order at the address for correspondence of the then CPIO(s) for timely compliance of the above- mentioned directions.Page 55 of 60
Meanwhile, the Commission advises Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/CPIO to take all necessary steps to procure the available information against each point as sought for in these RTI Applications from the concerned record holder under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the same directly to the Complainant/Appellant within reasonable time.
In case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/161186, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104375, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104373, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106214, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106209, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106211, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106215, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109235, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109236, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109237, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109238, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110006, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110007,CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110008, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110009, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110010,CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121795, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124061, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/127636, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/140886, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146940, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146942, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148267, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148268, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148269:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, is of the considered view that a cyclostyled/stereotype common reply has been provided by the then concerned CPIO, Mr. Niranjan Kumar Joshi, Dy. Land & Development Officer on 09.11.2022 by rejecting all the pending RTI applications of the Complainant/Appellant; ignoring the fact that the queries raised by the Complainant/Appellant in each RTI application is distinguishable, hence, the rejection is unacceptable in the eyes of law. The CPIOs' were expected to have applied their minds while responding to each RTI Application separately on merits, by giving available information in consonance with the spirit of RTI Act.
They ought to have intimated regarding availability/non-availability of information to the Appellant. And if at all any exemption was to claimed it should have been done with full justification quoting the relevant clause of Section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable. The conduct of the then CPIO and the present CPIO depict that the instant cases were badly handled. It amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant's/Appellant's right to information.
In view of the above, inaction on the respondent's part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to concern the then CPIO, Page 56 of 60 Mr. Niranjan Kumar Joshi, Dy. Land & Development Officer and the present CPIO, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO. The CPIOs shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the CPIOs should reach the Commission within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/CPIO, MOHUA should ensure service of this order at the address for correspondence of the then CPIO(s) for timely compliance of the above-mentioned directions.
Now coming to relief of information sought by the Complainant/Appellant is concerned, the Commission is of the view that the reply furnished by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Lakhumna, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO now in case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104373, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109238, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110006, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110007, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110008, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110009, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121795 and CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124061 vide written submission are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. Hence, no additional relief can be granted in these six matters.
However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Lakhumna, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his latest written submission along with enclosures, free of cost, to the complainant/appellant within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
Nonetheless, in case File Nos. CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/104375, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106214, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106209, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106211, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106215, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109235, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109236, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/109237, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121795, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124061, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/127636 and CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/110010, the Commission further directs Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/CPIO to revisit the contents of each RTI application and provide a revised point-wise updated reply separately along with relevant information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, free of cost, to the Complainant/Appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 57 of 60FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
In case File No. CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/161186, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/140886, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146940, CIC/LADOF/C/2023/146942, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148267, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148268, CIC/MOHUA/C/2023/148269.
The Commission advises Mr. Rajeev Kumar Das, Dy. L & DO/CPIO to take all necessary steps to procure the available information against each point as sought for in the each of RTI Applications in these cases from the concerned record holder under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the same directly to the Complainant/Appellant within reasonable time.
In case File Nos. CIC/LADOF/A/2023/106205, CIC/LADOF/A/2023/121794, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124059, CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/124060 and CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/127635:
The Commission upon hearing submissions of both the parties and perusal of records observes that the reply furnished by the respondent against these five cases are as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, no additional relief can be granted in the matter.
However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Lakhumna, Dy. L & DO/ CPIO, for case File No. CIC/MOHUA/A/2023/127635, is directed to provide a copy of his latest written submission along with enclosures, free of cost, to the appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
Lastly, as regards the prayer for award of compensation to the Complainant/Appellant, the Commission notes with concern that the Appellant/Complainant Shri Pramod Kumar Oberoi is a senior citizen aged around 75 years, who is being made to run from pillar to post to get a resolution to his issues pertaining to Lease Deed and other connected matters for the property under reference. The fact remains that his issues have not been resolved till date even after a period of about last five and a half decades. Appellant/complainant cannot approach any Court of Law as it would be termed as premature litigation. Hence, it is natural for him to obtain a decision on his pending representations for which, he had no other choice but to file Page 58 of 60 multiple RTI applications and First Appeals with the Respondent Public Authority.
Taking into count of all of the above-mentioned facts, the Commission finds it pertinent to address the issue raised by the Complainant/Appellant for awarding compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, since the Complainant/Appellant prime facie established that he has suffered hardships due to inaction of the Respondent by not furnishing reply to his several RTI applications or delaying them inordinately besides keeping his representations pending since long. Hence, the Appellant is advised to file his detailed quantum of claim for compensation supported by necessary documents before the Commission with a copy marked to the Respondent, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receipt of the claim from the Complainant/Appellant, the Respondents are directed to file their reply to the Commission within four weeks, thereafter, with a copy marked to the Complainant/Appellant.
With the above directions, the Complaints and appeals are disposed of.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, C Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 Page 59 of 60 Page 60 of 60 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)