Central Information Commission
Anil Chander Bagga vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DDATY/A/2023/126115
Anil Chander Bagga .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Director (GH), Delhi Development
Authority, C Block, Second Floor,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024
Date of Decision : 22.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.03.2023
CPIO replied on : Nil
First appeal filed on : 26.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2023 seeking the following information:
1. Please find enclosed the photocopy of the News Paper Advertisement issued by the DDA in Hindustan Times, New Delhi mentioning that "No dues Certificate to individual from CGHS/CHBS Will not be asked"
2. Please furnish me copies of the policy/Order/Other Basis which upon the said advertisement was Published by the DDA Page 1 of 8 Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Anil Chander Bagga along with Shri Ghanshyam Dass Gupta, attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Rahul Rathee, PIO-cum-Assistant Director/LD (Co- ordination), attended the hearing in person.
At the outset, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that a similar RTI Application exactly on the same subject property was filed by Smt. Alka Gupta, seeking similar piece of information, which has already been heard on 21.08.2024, by this bench in Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2023/120311 and the same has been decided vide order dated 23.08.2024.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application till date. He apprised the bench of the fact that as per the averred advertisement of DDA, for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold, it was clearly mentioned that No Dues Certificate to individual from CGHS/CHBS will not be asked. But when he applied for the conversion of the property, his application was rejected for want of No Dues Certificate and further produced the original advertisement dated 06.05.2016 at page No. 7 of Hindustan Times Newspaper and the same has been taken on record, and a copy handed over to the Respondent during the hearing. He further informed the Respondent that he is ready to pay the ground rent for conversion of property, if required.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their records and on the previous hearing, Group Housing department of DDA has wrongly transferred the RTI Application to their department.
Page 2 of 8The Commission interjected and asked the Respondent that DDA is passing the RTI Application like a football from one office to another office but till date neither they have provided the information to the Appellant, nor they are certain about the custodian of the information. In response, the Respondent submitted that the information might pertain to Public Relation Department. This lack of clarity within Respondent Public Authority is defeating the very purpose of having the RTI Act. The Commission has already issued an advisory in this regard to the Respondent Public Authority in Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2023/629131, to bring about role clarity amongst various functionaries and also appoint a Nodal Office for RTI. Same is reiterated as under:
"Be that as it may, such conduct of the PIOs' of Respondent Public Authority in having transferred the RTI Application back and forth amongst their offices without providing complete material information to the RTI Applicants, is seen often by the bench and this issue needs to be addressed to promote transparency and accountability in governance as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission would like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 14.11.2007, bearing Ref. No. 1/32/2007-IR, issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, Government of India, regarding Creation of Central Point for receiving applications and designation of appellate authorities under the RTI Act, 2005, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"1.The undersigned is directed to say that the sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates all public authorities to designate as many Public Information Officers as necessary to provide information under the Act. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its First Report (June 2006) has observed that where a public authority designates more than one Public Information Officer (PIO), an applicant is likely to face difficulty in approaching the appropriate Public Information Officer, and the applicants would also face problem in identifying the officer senior in rank to the PIO to whom an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act can be made. (For convenience such an officer is termed as the First Appellate Authority). The Commission has, inter-alia, recommended that all Ministries/ Departments/Agencies/Offices, with more than one PIO, should designate a Nodal Officer with the authority to receive requests for information on behalf of all PIOs. The Commission has also recommended that all the public authorities should designate the First Appellate Authorities.
2. It is, therefore, requested that all public authorities with more than one PIO should create a central point within the organisation where all the RTI applications and the appeals addressed to the First Appellate Authorities may be received. An officer should be made responsible to ensure that all the RTI applications/appeals received at the central point are Page 3 of 8 sent to the concerned Public Information Officers/Appellate Authorities, on the same day. For instance, the RTI applications/appeals may be received in the Receipt and Issue Section/ Central Registry Section of the Ministry/Department /Organsiation/Agency and distributed to the concerned PIOs/Appellate Authorities. The R&I/CR Section may maintain a separate register for the purpose. The Officer-in-Charge/Branch Officer of the Section may ensure that the applications/appeals received are distributed the same day."
The Commission would further like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2024, bearing Ref. No. S-15/21/2021-(PG)-DARPG (e-7085), issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, Government of India, regarding Comprehensive guidelines for handling the Public Grievance, wherein following similar directions have been issued by DoPT signifying the importance of having a Nodal Officer on such important matters:
"Subject: Comprehensive guidelines for handling the . . . . . . . .. xxx:
1. xxx
2. Appointment of Nodal Officer for Public Grievances Nodal Officer for Public Grievances plays a pivotal role in ensuring that grievances from citizens are addressed promptly, fairly, and efficiently. While appointing the Nodal officer for PG, the Ministries shall ensure that the nodal officer shall have enough experience, competency and authority to deal with the public complaints. He shall have the knowledge about the work flow and mapping of officers in each and every vertical in the Ministry/Department including attached/subordinate/autonomous bodies. In the Ministries/Departments where large number of Public Grievances are received, it is advised to appoint a dedicated Nodal officer with independent charge on sufficient rank so as to ensure timely and qualitative disposal of public grievances.
3. Role of Nodal Public Grievance officer An indicative list of activities to be performed by the Nodal Officer for PG is given as follows:
(1) Effective categorization: Performance of CPGRAMS is based on the effective categorization of complaints and their mapping with right authorities. Hence accurate and updated categorization is critical for grievances reaching the right authority in shortest possible time. Nodal PG officer, under the guidance of Secretary, shall undertake review of categorization once in a six months to ensure their relevance and effectiveness for citizen in filing of grievances.
(ii) Appointment of Nodal Technical GRO: Updating of Grievance Redressal Officers (GRO) on CPGRAMS along with their mobile number, ensuring that correct mapping of GROS with the corresponding categories in CPGRAMS etc. is at the heart of the faster grievance resolution process. It is suggested that Nodal GRO appoint a Nodal Technical GRO under him for enabling this process. Updation of Officers' information regarding his/her mobile number, transfer, retirement and all other technical information regarding CPGRAMS of the Ministry/Department needs to rest with the Nodal Technical GRO.
(iii) Monitoring pendency: It is the responsibility of the Nodal Officer to monitor grievances and check quality of disposal. It is the responsibility of Nodal GROS to ensure that the Page 4 of 8 grievances are handled with sensitivity and communication to citizens are polite and respectful.
(iv) Nodal PG officer can view the performance of other GROs in the nodal PG officer's dashboard in CPGRAMS. He is expected to utilize this facility to review the performance of other GROS in his Ministry.
(v) DARPG has created a portal for the feedback collected by BSNL on the grievances disposed by the GROS on CPGRAMS. The portal can be accessed on pgportal.gov.in/ccfeedback/The Nodal officer is expected to analyze the feedback and work on the areas of poor/low feedback.
(vi) Root Cause Analysis of Public Grievances to identify areas of concerns and address them through systemic reforms is one of the main objectives of the Public Grievance System.
DARPG has set up Data Strategy Unit and developed analytics dashboards powered with Al for deeper analysis of grievances. The Nodal Officer can use the facility developed by DARPG to analyse the pain-points in their schemes/ programmes and address them on a sustainable basis.
(vii) DARPG is publishing monthly reports on CPGRAMS. The Reports contains relative performance of Ministry / Departments including the ranking of Ministries on the parameters of Grievance Redressal and Assessment Index (GRAI). Nodal Officer shall utilize the report for improving overall performance and ranking of their Ministries/Departments.
(viii) Nodal officer shall take note of the complaints appearing in the newspaper/ social media etc. and take suo moto action on the complaints.
(ix) At least one day in a month shall be utilized by Nodal GRO for having meetings with all Grievance Redressal Officers in his Ministry/Department regarding pendency, quality of redressal and complaints being received.
4. to 14. Xxx"
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Shri Subhashish Panda, VC, DDA, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and look into the matter in larger public interest and sensitize Nodal PIO's dealing with the RTI matters in particular, regarding their role and responsibilities as a Nodal officer under the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. A Nodal Officer in the RTI framework plays crucial role in ensuring the smooth implementation of RTI Act and their primary responsibility is to facilitate the flow of information between a Public Authority and the RTI Applicants and sensitizing their Nodal PIO's will make certain that RTI Applications are processed within stipulated timeframe and are forwarded to the concerned PIO/APIO. This process will also be beneficial to the RTI Applicants as it provides a single point of contact while filing RTI Applications. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is also directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action."Page 5 of 8
The PIO-cum-Assistnat Director (Group Housing/DDA), transferred the RTI Application under Section 6 (3) of the RIT Act along with the hearing notice to PIO-cum-Assistnat Director (Co-operative Societies/DDA), vide letter dated 04.10.2024.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission upon a perusal of records adversely viewed the conduct of the PIOs' of Respondent Public Authority in having transferred the RTI Application back and forth amongst their offices without providing complete material information to the Appellant till date. This fact is evident from the record that a similar RTI Application exactly on the same subject property was filed by Smt. Alka Gupta, seeking similar piece of information, which has already been heard on 21.08.2024, by this bench in Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2023/120311 and the same has been decided vide order dated 23.08.2024, wherein a SCN has been issued to Shri Rahul Rathee, PIO- cum-Assistant Director/LD (Co-ordination), for not providing the information to the Appellant.
During the hearing of the present case, Shri Rahul Rathee, PIO-cum-Assistant Director/LD (Co-ordination), DDA, informed the bench that the information sought in the RTI Application does not pertain to their office and the same might be available with Public Relation Department of DDA.
In addition to the above, Shri Rahul Rathee, PIO-cum-Assistant Director/LD (Co- ordination), DDA, despite having the directions from the Commission to provide the information to the Appellant in its previous order dated 23.08.2024, did not even take the pain to gather the requested information from their concerned department, to facilitate relevant information to the Appellant till date. Such casual conduct of the PIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the free flow of information to the information seeker under the RTI Act. This conduct is not appreciated.
Now that considerable time has elapsed, the Commission directs Shri Rahul Rathee, PIO-cum-Assistant Director/LD (Co-ordination), DDA, to take all necessary steps to procure the available information as sought for in the RTI Application from the concerned record holders under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the same directly to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 6 of 8The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance with these directions.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the PIO, wherein, the onus of replying to the instant RTI Application is being passed on like a football from one office to another office of DDA. Further the previous order passed by this bench in Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2023/120311, has also not been complied with by the answering PIO. It is noted that even after the lapse of more than a year, the Respondent public authority is yet to ascertain the actual custodian of the information, which also raised doubt that information has not been given to the Appellant with mala fide intent. The Commission treats this as a blatant error and willful violation of the provisions of the RTI Act for which the Respondents are admonished. The RTI Act has provisions for supplying information under Section 5 (4) precisely to address the situation like the present one because the farmers of law knew what kind of passing the buck in the office of various public authorities. In the present case, the action of the Respondent Public Authority has defeated the very purpose of these provisions and hence, their conduct is despicable to say the least.
In view of the above, inaction on the part of the Respondent is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to Shri Rahul Rathee, PIO- cum-Assistant Director/LD (Co-ordination), DDA. The PIO 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 PIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is 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 Page 7 of 8 Copy to:
The FAA, Deputy Director (GH), Delhi Development Authority, C Block, Second Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)