Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Gnctd on 3 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: CIC/MCDND/C/2023/104209/GNCTD
CIC/MCDND/A/2022/157853
Akshay Kumar Malhotra ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Public Works Department, O/o
the Executive Engineer (E) -
I, CCTV Wifi Street Light,
13th Floor, MSO Bldg. I P
Estate, New Delhi - 110022.
PIO,
Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Office of the Executive
Engineer (Building)-1/PIO, A-1
Block, Keshav Puram Zone,
Delhi - 110035. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024
Date of Decision : 02.01.2025
Page 1 of 20
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals/complaint are clubbed together as the
Appellant/Complainant is common and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/MCDND/C/2023/104209/GNCTD
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.07.2022
CPIO replied on : 20.10.2022 (FAA order compliance)
First appeal filed on : 28.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.09.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to the complaints lodged by me on DDA Mobile App under STF (Special Task Force) Module, which was constituted under the orders of H'ble Supreme Court of India, and on Delhi Govt PGMS webportal.
Complaints lodged by me are as under:
1. STF Complaint Number 20220207140000128045 Dated 14.07.2022 lodged on DDA-311 Mobile App and this complaint is already been assigned to Mr. B.K.Sah, Ex. Engineer(B)-1, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi- 110 035- Complaint is still open as no action taken so far.
2. STF Complaint Number 20220206010000124838 Dated 01.06.2022 lodged on DDA-311 Mobile App and this complaint is been assigned to Mr. B.K.Sah, Ex. Engineer(B)-I, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi- 110 035, and is unilaterally closed by Mr B.K.Sah by saying that, 'During inspection, neither any construction noticed in progress nor any building material found stacked at site.' Page 2 of 20
3. PGMS, GNCTD, Delhi Complaint Number 2022067907 Dated 01.06.2022 addressed to Mr. B.K.Sah, Ex. Engineer(B)-I, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi-110 035- which is still in Re-Open status but Mr B.K.Sah unilaterally closed it on 4 occasions so far on 18.07.2022, 11.07.2022, 28.06.2022, 16.06.2022, 13.06.2022 by saying that 'During inspection, neither any construction noticed in progress nor any building material found stacked at site.
And all the 4 times I got it Re-opened with my remarks that, 'No action taken till date. Just lame excuses given. Moreover, I didn't say that construction is going on I said that there is violation of Standard building Plan and bye-laws (SBP) by constructing additional room in open area and on terrace violation of structural strength and structure is made weak by tampering with beams and columns, and it is already constructed. So does Mr B.K.Sah want to say that already constructed building with violation of Standard Building Plan is not a violation and hence he can't take action.' Violation of basic Governance model as well as RTI Act, 2005 by the North DMC The information requested by me in my RTI Application is a Public information as Public Authority is under obligation to put the addresses of such buildings which are been/being constructed in violation of Standard Building Plan and this making building structures weak and prone to collapse.
Thus the information asked by me in my present RTI Application comes under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005, i.e. suo-motu disclosure of information by public authority.
But still, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen at its own by the Public Authority, in the normal course.
It's nothing but classic cases of bureaucratic red-tape inaction and the practice of shrinking responsibility by public servants, which has led to unnecessary concealing of every bit of information by the Public Authority and forcing the Citizen to file RTI Applications for getting any bit of information and endless rounds of correspondence being exchanged to get the same but without arriving at any logical conclusion. The conduct of such public servants in these public authority defeats the very purpose of Governance model as well as the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 20It's a COMPLETE FAILURE on the part of PIO to not give the information and rather denying the information by one reason or other, which is nothing but an intentional attempt to deny the information and forcing citizen to file RTI Application, whereas Section 4(2) of RTI Act, 2005 says that, 'It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub- section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
Few Important judgements given by Hon'ble Courts i. Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet.
There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
ii.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."Page 4 of 20
Which directly means, that PIO's of public authorities should suo-moto put the information in public domain.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497, also held as under:
'If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act.' Which directly means, that if the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only and not otherwise.
iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 observed as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy"
iv. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its important and significant decision passed by way of resolution dated 03.10.2017 declared that decisions regarding uploading of collegiums resolutions should be uploaded on website for ensuring transparency of collegium system.
"THAT the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the mater....
The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."Page 5 of 20
v. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in much before the legislative enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, in a progressive interpretation of the Constitutional provisions, had paved the way towards delineating the Right to Information. In 1975, in State of UP vs. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333), Justice Mathew had ruled:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries."
vi. Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted.
[see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)]. B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible (see Section 4(2)]."
vii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14....... The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public Page 6 of 20 authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Please inform me on following points from Serial Number 1 to 9 (including sub- points):
1. Please inform me the action taken on the 3 complaints, as mentioned by me above, i.e i. STF Complaint Number 20220207140000128045 Dated 14.07.2022 ii. STF Complaint Number 20220206010000124838 Dated 01.06.2022 PGMS, GNCTD, Delhi Complaint Number 2022067907 Dated 01.06.2022
2. Please inform me the entire sequence of flow/movement of my complaint with various officials of various public authorities and action taken by each of the official on my complaint, giving complete details of action taken on my complaint starting from filing of complaint till date of reply by the respective CPIO of the public authority, by giving details viz i. Name of the official ii. Designation of official Name of public authority iv. Date of receiving of complaint / file containing my complaints, both the complaints, by the official and the public authority v. Action taken by respective official and the name of public authority vi. Date of action taken vii. Directions issued by respective official
3. I am also to be provided with the entire sequence of all the documents in support along with all file notings on the said 3 complaints, right from the beginning till the date of responding back to this RTI Application by the PIO of the Public Authority.
4. Please inform me the action which can be taken, as per the DMC Act, 1957 (Delhi Municipal Act, 1957) against the violation of Standard Building Plan, for the UNDER-CONSTRUCTION buildings.Page 7 of 20
5. Please inform me the action which can be taken, as per the DMC Act, 1957 (Delhi Municipal Act, 1957) against the violation of Standard Building Plan, for the ALREDAY-CONSTRUCTED buildings.
6. Please inform me the reason(s) in record for not taking any action against the violator of Standard Building Plan by the owners/occupiers of the said flat for which I lodged the 3 complaint on DDA-311 as well as on PGMS web portal of GNCTD.
7. Please inform me that whether any Show Cause Notice is issued suo-
motu by public authority or on specific complaint(s) (as I have made 3 complaints).
8. Please inform me and provide me with all those information along with certified copies of all those documents forming part of the Decision making process within North DMC, right from short listing said property, as per the 3 complaints, till taking the Decision of issuing with the Show Cause Notice, in case it was a suo-motu action of North DMC or on specific complaints made by me.
9. Please inform me that what action is been taken by North DMC for issuance of Show Cause Notices for violation of building bye-laws U/s 343/344(1) of DMC Act, 1957 for taking a suo-motu action by North DMC or on specific complaints lodged by me."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 19.09.2022, held as under:
"The case is taken up for hearing on 13.09.2022, the appellant Sh. Akshay Kumar Malhotra filed above RTI application online in respect of STF reference. As stated by the appellant, he has not received the information from the PIO;, he has preferred the 1™ Appeal before the undersigned.
During appeal proceedings, I have gone through the contents of the RTI application filed by the appellant and it has been revealed that the applicant want some information of STF reference and the same has not been provided by the PIO. The representative of PIO/ΕΕ(Β)- I/KPZ submitted that this RTI application has not been received in this office till date. Therefore, the photocopy of RTI application handed over to representative of PIO/EE(B)-I/KPZ during appeal proceedings itself.Page 8 of 20
Further, PIO/EE(B)-I/KPZ is directed to provide specific reply to the applicant within ten days from the date of receipt of this order."
In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 20.10.2022 stating as under:
"1. The action taken report/reply on your two STF references and one PGMS have already been updated and uploaded.
2. The entire sequence of flow already shown on the portal with complete details.
3. Please see the reply of point no.2 above.
4. The information sought vide this point does not come under the purview of RTI Act-2005.
5. Please see the reply of point no.4 above.
6. Please see the reply of point no.4 above.
7. Please see the reply of point no.1 & 2 above.
8. Please see the reply of point no.1 & 2 above.
9. Please see the reply of point no.1 & 2 above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
CIC/MCDND/A/2022/157853 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 20.10.2022 First appeal filed on : 28.08.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.09.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.11.2022 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
"The information in the present RTI Application is related to the complaints lodged by me on DDA Mobile App under STF (Special Task Force) Module, which was constituted under the orders of H'ble Supreme Court of India, and on Delhi Govt PGMS webportal.
Complaints lodged by me are as under:
Page 9 of 201. STF Complaint Number 20220207140000128045 Dated 14.07.2022 lodged on DDA-311 Mobile App and this complaint is already been assigned to Mr. B.K.Sah, Ex. Engineer(B)-1, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi- 110 035-Complaint is still open as no action taken so far.
2. STF Complaint Number 20220206010000124838 Dated 01.06.2022 lodged on DDA-311 Mobile App and this complaint is been assigned to Mr. B.K.Sah, Ex. Engineer(B)-1, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi 110 035, and is unilaterally closed by Mr B.K.Sah by saying that, 'During inspection, neither any construction noticed in progress nor any building material found stacked at site.'
3. PGMS, GNCTD, Delhi Complaint Number 2022067907 Dated 01.06.2022 addressed to Mr. B.K.Sah, Ex. Engineer(B)-1, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Keshav Puram Zone, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram Zone, Delhi- 110 035- which is still in Re-Open status but Mr B.K.Sah unilaterally closed it on 4 occasions so far on 18.07.2022, 11.07.2022, 28.06.2022, 16.06.2022, 13.06.2022 by saying that 'During inspection, neither any construction noticed in progress nor any building material found stacked at site.
And all the 4 times I got it Re-opened with my remarks that, 'No action taken till date. Just lame excuses given. Moreover, I didn't say that construction is going on I said that there is violation of Standard building Plan and bye-laws (SBP) by constructing additional room in open area and on terrace violation of structural strength and structure is made weak by tampering with beams and columns, and it is already constructed. So does Mr B.K.Sah want to say that already constructed building with violation of Standard Building Plan is not a violation and hence he can't take action.' Violation of basic Governance model as well as RTI Act, 2005 by the North DMC The information requested by me in my RTI Application is a Public information as Public Authority is under obligation to put the addresses of such buildings which are been/being constructed in violation of Standard Building Plan and this making building structures weak and prone to collapse.
Page 10 of 20Thus the information asked by me in my present RTI Application comes under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005, i.e. suo-motu disclosure of information by public authority.
But still, a citizen has to file a RTI Application, for an information, which otherwise should have been made available to the citizen at its own by the Public Authority, in the normal course.
It's nothing but classic cases of bureaucratic red-tape inaction and the practice of shrinking responsibility by public servants, which has led to unnecessary concealing of every bit of information by the Public Authority and forcing the Citizen to file RTI Applications for getting any bit of information and endless rounds of correspondence being exchanged to get the same but without arriving at any logical conclusion. The conduct of such public servants in these public authority defeats the very purpose of Governance model as well as the RTI Act.
It's a COMPLETE FAILURE on the part of PIO to not give the information and rather denying the information by one reason or other, which is nothing but an intentional attempt to deny the information and forcing citizen to file RTI Application, whereas Section 4(2) of RTI Act, 2005 says that, 'It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub- section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.' Few Important judgements given by Hon'ble Courts i.Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said Page 11 of 20 section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet.
There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
ii.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
Which directly means, that PIO's of public authorities should suo-moto put the information in public domain.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497, also held as under:
'If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act.' Which directly means, that if the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only and not otherwise.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 observed as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public Page 12 of 20 policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy"
iv. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its important and significant decision passed by way of resolution dated 03.10.2017 declared that decisions regarding uploading of collegiums resolutions should be uploaded on website for ensuring transparency of collegium system.
"THAT the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the mater....
The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."
V. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in much before the legislative enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, in a progressive interpretation of the Constitutional provisions, had paved the way towards delineating the Right to Information. In 1975, in State of UP vs. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333), Justice Mathew had ruled:
"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries."
vi. Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of Page 13 of 20 the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible (see Section 4(2))." vii. Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14....... The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Please inform me on following points from Serial Number 1 to 9 (including sub- points):
1. Please inform me the action taken on the 3 complaints, as mentioned by me above, i.e i. STF Complaint Number 20220207140000128045 Dated 14.07.2022 ii. STF Complaint Number 20220206010000124838 Dated 01.06.2022 iii. PGMS, GNCTD, Delhi Complaint Number 2022067907 Dated 01.06.2022
2. Please inform me the entire sequence of flow/movement of my complaint with various officials of various public authorities and action taken by each of the official on my complaint, giving complete details of Page 14 of 20 action taken on my complaint starting from filing of complaint till date of reply by the respective CPIO of the public authority, by giving details viz i. Name of the official ii. Designation of official iii. Name of public authority iv. Date of receiving of complaint / file containing my complaints, both the complaints, by the official and the public authority v. Action taken by respective official and the name of public authority vi. Date of action taken vii. Directions issued by respective official
3. I am also to be provided with the entire sequence of all the documents in support along with all file notings on the said 3 complaints, right from the beginning till the date of responding back to this RTI Application by the PIO of the Public Authority.
4. Please inform me the action which can be taken, as per the DMC Act, 1957 (Delhi Municipal Act, 1957) against the violation of Standard Building Plan, for the UNDER-CONSTRUCTION buildings.
5. Please inform me the action which can be taken, as per the DMC Act, 1957 (Delhi Municipal Act, 1957) against the violation of Standard Building Plan, for the ALREDAY-CONSTRUCTED buildings.
6. Please Plea inform me the reason(s) in record for not taking any action against the violator of Standard Building Plan by the owners/occupiers of the said flat for which I lodged the 3 complaint on DDA-311 as well as on PGMS web portal of GNCTD.
7. Please inform me that whether any Show Cause Notice is issued suo-
motu by public authority or on specific complaint(s) (as I have made 3 complaints).
8. Please inform me and provide me with all those information along with certified copies of all those documents forming part of the Decision making process within North DMC, right from short listing said property, as per the 3 complaints, till taking the Decision of issuing with the Show Cause Notice, in case it was a suo-motu action of North DMC or on specific complaints made by me.
9. Please inform me that what action is been taken by North DMC for issuance of Show Cause Notices for violation of building bye-laws U/s Page 15 of 20 343/344(1) of DMC Act, 1957 for taking a suo-motu action by North DMC or on specific complaints lodged by me."
Having not received any response from the CPIO initially, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 19.09.2022, held as under:
"The case is taken up for hearing on 13.09.2022, the appellant Sh. Akshay Kumar Malhotra filed above RTI application online in respect of STF reference. As stated by the appellant, he has not received the information from the PIO:, he has preferred the 1st Appeal before the undersigned.
During appeal proceedings, I have gone through the contents of the RTI application filed by the appellant and it has been revealed that the applicant want some information of STF reference and the same has not been provided by the PIO. The representative of PIO/EE(B)- I/KPZ submitted that this RTI application has not been received in this office till date. Therefore. the photocopy of RTI application handed over to representative of PIO/EE(B)-1/KPZ during appeal proceedings itself. Further, PIO/EE(B)-I/KPZ is directed to provide specific reply to the applicant within ten days from the date of receipt of this order."
In compliance with FAA order, the CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 20.10.2022 stating as under:
"1. The action taken report/reply on your two STF references and one PGMS have already been updated and uploaded.
2. The entire sequence of flow already shown on the portal with complete details.
3. Please see the reply of point no.2 above.
4. The information sought vide this point does not come under the purview of RTI Act-2005.
5. Please see the reply of point no.4 above.
6. Please see the reply of point no.4 above.
7. Please see the reply of point no.1 & 2 above.Page 16 of 20
8. Please see the reply of point no.1 & 2 above.
9. Please see the reply of point no.1 & 2 above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Mehboob, AE (B1) & APIO and Shri Amar Nath, OI (B) present in person.
Written submissions of the Complainant/Appellant are taken on record.
The Complainant/Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal/complaint and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent. The Complainant/Appellant added that the Respondent has not furnished the flow chart as sought by him on point No. 2 of the RTI application.
During the hearing, the Complainant/Appellant challenged the veracity of the information provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 20.10.2022, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Complainant/Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant/Appellant in the instant Complaint/Appeal was non-receipt of complete information from the Respondent on point No. 2 of the RTI application.Page 17 of 20
The Commission observes that the Complainant/Appellant has sought specific information in his RTI application related to entire sequence of flow/movement of his complaint with various officials of various public authorities and action taken by each of the official on his complaint. But clear and specific information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to provide complete information to the Complainant/Appellant on point No. 2 of the RTI application including remarks/comments of other officers on his complaint, free of cost, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
With respect to other points of the RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant/Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:Page 18 of 20
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum to redress his grievance.
Now, one of the two clubbed cases being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."Page 19 of 20
No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are disposed of accordingly.
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:
Public Works Department, O/o the Executive Engineer (E) - I, CCTV Wifi Street Light, 13th Floor, MSO Bldg. I P Estate, New Delhi - 110022.
The FAA, MCD, Office of the Superintending Engineer - 1, Keshav Puram Zone, Room No. 101, A-1 Block, Keshav Puram, New Delhi - 110035 Page 20 of 20 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)