Central Information Commission
Tarun Parmar (Advocate) vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 September, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DDATY/A/2021/646245
Tarun Parmar .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(LAB-Resdl.),
Delhi Development Authority,
Land Administration Branch-Residential,
Room No.305, 3rd Floor, Block-C-II,
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony, New Delhi-110023.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(RTI Section),
Delhi Development Authority,
RTI Implementation & Coordination Branch,
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A. Colony, New Delhi-110023.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.09.2021
CPIO replied on : 22.09.2021
First appeal filed on : 22.09.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 30.09.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 14.10.2021
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022
Date of Decision : 19.09.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 22.09.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 22.09.2021.Page 2 of 5
• The FAA vide order dated 30.09.2021 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o. A.D. (LAB- Residential), DDA, vide letter dated 12.09.2022, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present.
Respondent: 1) Mr. Sunil Gupta, Nodal PIO, DDA, present.
2) Mr. Vikas, Rept. Of PIO, LAB-Residential, DDA, present.
Appellant stated that relevant information has not been furnished to him in the instant matter by the concerned PIO. He further requested the Commission to direct the concerned PIO to furnish a reply in the instant matter.
Page 3 of 5Upon Commission's instance, Appellant clarified that he has sought information with regards to an award made by Land & Building Department, in lieu of acquisition land, to his grand-father Mr. Nanak Chand.
Rept. Of PIO submitted that relevant information has already been duly furnished to the Appellant, vide letter dated 26.03.2021. He further submitted that she would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o. A.D. (LAB-Residential), DDA, vide letter dated 12.09.2022, clarifying the factual matrix of the instant matter and submitting that the information sought pertains to DSIIDC as the land was acquired to DSIIDC and directly handed over to the concerned department.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the present PIO, O/o. A.D. (LAB-Residential), DDA, to furnish a copy of their reply, dated 12.09.2022, along with annexures, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post/registered post, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Now, Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that the appellant is seeking clarification of the CPIO with regards to award number, as duly mentioned in RTI Application. In view of the foregoing, Commission remarks that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides for the PIO to provide such information which means:-
"any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
Further, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act enumerates that "right to information" means "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;Page 4 of 5
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;."
As much as the PIO has a statutory duty to respond to RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act, a RTI Applicant also has to adhere to the same provisions while seeking information under the Act.
In view of aforesaid observations, it will suffice to say that Appellant has sought clarification of the PIO which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, PIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance, noncompliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act. Hence, no further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5