Central Information Commission
Wg. Cdr. (Retd) Prem Prakash Puri vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) on 16 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Adjunct to Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00534 dated 24.4.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Wg. Cdr. (Retd) Prem Prakash Puri
Respondent - Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
ORDER
By our decision notice of 26.9.08, we had directed as follows:
"Because the information sought has not been furnished within the time limit specified, then PIO Shri JP Agrawal former Director (H) will show cause why he should not be held liable for penalty, from 11.1.07 i.e. when the information became due to the date when the information is actually supplied, @ Rs. 250/- a day up to Rs. 25,000/-. He may do this either in writing by 8.10.'08 or by personal appearance before us on 17.10.2008 at 10.00 a.m. "
Subsequently on the failure of Shri J.P. Agrawal to appear before us, we have in our adjunct order of 17.10.08 directed as follows:
"We have received no response from Shri J.P.Agrawal, former PIO and Director (H) in the Delhi Development Authority nor has he appeared before us in person on the due date and time. We must, therefore, assume that Shri J. P. Agrawal has nothing to say in response to the Show Cause Notice.
Ms. Asma Manzar, Commissioner (Housing), Delhi Development Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs 25,000/- in five installments of Rs. 5000/- each, from Shri J.P. Agrawal, former PIO & Director (Housing), either directly or through deduction from his rd salary starting from 3 November, 2008. "
However, on 22.10.08 we have received a representation from Shri J.P. Agrawal, at present Jt. Chief Electoral Officer, GNCTD, Office of Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi in which he submitted as follows:
"It is to inform that I am at present posted as Jt. Chief Electoral Officer in the Office of Chief Electoral Office, Old St. Stephens' College Building, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and copy of the said order has been received by the undersigned by FAX only today i.e. 1 22.10.2008 (copy enclosed) and therefore, could neither reply by 8.10.2008 nor appear in person on 17.10.2008.
The General Elections to Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi are scheduled to be held on 29.11.2008 and the entire election process shall be completed by 10.12.2008. Presently, I am busy in the said election process.
It is, therefore, requested that the undersigned may be given an opportunity to appear in person on any date after 10.12.2008 keeping in view the impending Elections to Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi and the relevant record is also to be seen by undersigned in the office of Director (Housing)-II, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
I shall be grateful, if you could kindly give me an opportunity to appear in person to defend my case."
We have also received a letter of 10.11.08 from Ms. Asma Manzar, Commissioner (Housing) DDA wherein she has admitted that the orders of 29.6.08 had not been communicated to Shri J.P. Agrawal till the time of the next hearing. She has, therefore, submitted as follows:
"As a matter of fact by the time, the said Shri JP Agrawal was informed about the Decision Notice, this Hon'ble Commission had already passed the aforesaid order.
The aforesaid order, therefore, if allowed to be sustained, would result in violation of principles of natural justice as nobody can be condemned without hearing.
Since no opportunity of hearing could be given to the said Shri JP Agrawal due to delay in communication of the Decision Notice, therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to review the aforesaid Order dated 17.10.2008 and grant an opportunity to Shri JP Agrawal to submit his version in writing and appearing before this Hon'ble Commission to make submission to clarify his position."
Accordingly, implementation of the orders were withheld to allow an opportunity to Shri J. P. Agrawal, then CPIO of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him, as mandated in the first proviso to sec. 20 sub sec. (1) of the RTI Act 2005. Shri Agrawal has made a detailed submission in response to our 2 hearing notice of 27.12.08. In this he has contended that a reply to the application of 11.12.06 has in fact been sent on 11.1.07 and has sought o explain the delay of one day. He has together with this submitted a copy of the letter of 2.4.07 from Asstt. Director (N&C) Housing, DDA to the PIO Director (H-II) in which Asstt. Director has submitted as follows:
"1. The Registration Certificate will be issued in due course.
2. As per DDA (Management & Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation 1968, all persons have been allotted a property in group of a housing estates as determined by Regulation-25 shall constitute themselves in to a registered Agency.
3&5 The functions of the Registered Agency are as under:
i) To discharge such duties and responsibilities as are specified in these regulations and the agreements made there under for the proper maintenance, running up keep and keeping in good repair common portions and common services of such property as have been allotted to its constituents members.
ii) To pay on behalf of the Agency and on behalf of each constituent member of such Agency all rates, taxes, fees, charges, assessments, municipal or otherwise and other levies of whatsoever nature as provided in the regulations and agreements executed with the Authority.
iii) To look after the interest of constituent members.
iv) To execute with the Authority agreements, lease deed of other documents as specified in these regulations.
4. After issue of registration certificate the matter will be referred to FA (H) for taking necessary action for the refund of share money.
6. The delay occurred due to verification of two Agencies.
However the same is regretted.
7. As Para one."
He states this was done as per his orders of 14.2.07 to reconstruct the relevant file. He has also invited our attention to a letter of 18.1.07 from appellant Wg. Cdr. Prem Prakash Puri in which he has attached a copy 3 addressed to Commr. (Housing) in which the Wg. Cdr. Puri, appellant in this case has stated as follows:
"I appeared before Director (H)-II on 21.1.05 as a president of Crystal Apartment Residents Welfare Association. I was pleased by the action. Fortunately he was the same person who gave us registration within twenty four hours when he was Registrar of Societies."
In the hearing, therefore, Shri Agrawal has contended that he has acted promptly and cannot be held liable.
The fact is that in our decision of 26.9.08 it is not the delay in response for which the CPIO has been held liable but we have instead found as follows:
"Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is the following:
"The CPIO should be directed to provide all the information sought in the initial application within a week."
It would be seen from the above that in fact the only two points raised by appellant Wg. Cdr. Puri in his original application of 11.12.06 where he had sought information, have not been replied to, whereas Shri Agrawal has simply forwarded a report to appellant without caring to examine whether this even addressed the information sought by appellant thus abdicating his responsibility as PIO, while the office of Director (H), DDA has sought to discuss wider issues which are not the concern of the RTI Act."
Here we have specifically found fault with the manner in which CPIO has sought to pass on a report to the appellant which had nothing to do with his request for information, since the information that was sought was in general terms as follows:
"Hence please reply how many DDA flats colonies are there till date and how many of them are registered till date.
Does DDA help the DDA flat colonies in registration, if not why not?"
Whereas, therefore, the request for information has indeed arisen from a failure to receive the registration certificate from the Crystal Apartments 4 Residence Welfare Association, the information sought went beyond simply the receipt of such a certificate. Therefore, it was quite clear that the information sought had not been given because the CPIO, who is the authority responsible for providing the information, had failed to apply his mind as to what information was sought and what he has passed on. This, therefore, amounts clearly to a deemed refusal.
For this reason, we cannot find any ground for interfering with our earlier decision. Under Sec. 5(4) of the RTI Act a CPIO can indeed seek the assistance of any other officer who, if he does not provide the information in time, will be deemed to be the PIO. However, in this case the CPIO has accepted the report of the Asstt. Director and fixed no responsibility on him for failure to provide information except when his own liability has become manifest. However, although he cannot escape responsibility, the deemed PIO can also not be exonerated. Shri S. C. Gupta, who was then Dy. Director (Agency H) and at present Secretary (RSKP Coord. Housing) also present has only been able to argue regarding prompt compliance with our decision notice, he has been unable to explain the reason for evading a direct answer to the information sought by the appellant. Therefore, the penalty in this will have to be shared between CPIO who is primarily responsible and the deemed PIO Shri S.C. Gupta, then Dy. Director (H) at Rs. 12,500/- each Ms. Asma Manzar, Commissioner (Housing), Delhi Development Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs 12,500/- in two installments of Rs. 6,250/- each, from Shri S. C. Gupta, then Dy. Director (H), now Secretary (RSKP Coord. Housing), either directly or through rd March deduction from his salary starting from 3 , 2009.
Since then CPIO Shri J.P. Agrawal is now with the GNCTD, the Chief Electoral Officer Dr. Satbir Sylas Bedi is directed to recover the amount of Rs 12,500/- in two installments of Rs. 6,250/- each, from Shri J.P. Agrawal, 5 former PIO & Director (Housing), now Jt. CEO, Election Department, Delhi, rd either directly or through deduction from his salary starting from 3 March, 2009.
In both above case the amount will be remitted to the Pay & Accounts Officer Central Administrative Tribunal, H-1 Hutments Dalhousie Road , New Delhi 110011 under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar Central Information Commission by the dates specified in each case. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 16.1.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 16.1.2009 6