Central Information Commission
Indu Sharma vs Revenue Department on 27 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/REVDP/C/2023/626463
Indu Sharma ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
SDM HQ, South West, DC Office,
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera, Delhi-110037 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.08.2024
Date of Decision : 23.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 12.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 19.04.2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. The DDA Residential Plots, Pocket-4, Sector-7, Bindapur, Dwarka located opposite to the Delhi Jal Board Office Bindapur and New Police Station Bindapur come under which category of locality for Circle rate calculation?Page 1 of 8
2. What is the circle rate at present for the above mentioned area?
In case the information is held by or related to another public authority, kindly forward/transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority under intimation to the undersigned as per Section 6(3) of RTI Act."
The CPIO forwarded the RTI application to the concerned PIO on 19.04.2023 (Telephone Number: - 01125069486, Email id:- [email protected]) and advised the complainant to contact the concerned PIO for further details.
Being dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Represented by her husband Mr. Harish Kumar Sharma present in person.
Respondent: Not present.
The Commission at the outset counsel the Complainant's representative that details of circle rates are available in public domain and can be easily accessed from the google link. To this, the Complainant's representative replied that he wants the requested information in a certified form. Upon being queried by the Commission regarding the advise of the PIO to contact the concerned PIO at the phone No. and email given in his reply, he stated that he did not try to contact the concerned PIO as suggested by the Respondent and directly approached the Commission.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that the instant matter is a complaint under 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 Page 2 of 8 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 finds that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 19.04.2023. No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case.
Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of Complainant's representative regarding furnishing of certified copies of information even when it is in public domain. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs R S Misra on 21 November, 2017 is notable, wherein it was held as under:
"...53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizens the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency.
55. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act reveals that the said Act is concerned only with that information, which is under the exclusive control of the 'public authority'. Providing copies/certified copies is not separate from providing information. The SCR not only deal with providing 'certified copies' of judicial records but also deal with providing 'not a certified copy' or simply a 'copy' of the document. The certification of the records is done by the Assistant Registrar/Branch Officer or any officer on behalf of the Registrar. In the opinion of this Court, in case of a statute which contemplates Page 3 of 8 dissemination of information as provided for by the Explanation to Section 4 of the RTI Act then in such situation, public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain such information.
56. There are other provisions of the RTI Act which support the said position, namely, Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) which contemplate that if an information is disseminated then the public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. In the present case, the dissemination of information under the provisions of the SCR squarely fits into the definition of "disseminated" as provided in the aforesaid Explanation to Section 7(9) and the Preamble contemplate a bar for providing information if it „disproportionally diverts the resources of the public authority‟.
57. Section 42 also provides that it shall be constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of sub- Section (1) thereof and to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications including intervals so that the public has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information.
58. A Division Bench of this Court in Prem Lata CPIO Trade Marks Registry, Delhi Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7604 in the context of accessing information from the Registrar of Trade Marks was concerned with the question whether information suo- motu being made available by a public authority through means of information including intervals in fulfillment of obligations under Section 4 of the Act can be requested for under Section 6 of the Act. For detailed reasons therein, it was held that neither can information already suo-motu made available by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4(b) be requested for under Section 6 of the RTI Act nor the CPIO was required to reject the said request giving reasons. It was held that the purport of the RTI Act is to make the information available to the public at large and the same can be deciphered also from Section 44 of the RTI Act providing for dissemination of information in a cost effective and easy mode to the extent possible. Consequently, information which is already available under any other statutory mechanism will not be covered under the provision of the RTI Act. (emphasis supplied) Similarly, observations of Hon'ble CIC in Shri Ram Singh vs. Central Public Information Officer (Decision No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000379/SB) dated 19th September 2016, are relevant:
"The RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information to the public including through internet so that the public have minimum Page 4 of 8 resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Further, once information has been provided in public domain and on website then the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as 'right to information'. Thus, the action of the CPIO is consonance with the RTI Act. The Commission, further observes that under the RTI Act only information available on records has to be provided, which has already been furnished to the appellant by the respondent."
Further, the Hon'ble CIC in K. Lall vs. M.K. Bagri (File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112) vide Order dated 12th April 2007 has held the following:
"...unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. This interpretation is further strengthened by the provisions of the RTI Act in Sections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4)..."
Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission adversely viewed the conduct of the Respondent for remaining absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. They are sternly cautioned to be cautious in future to avoid attracting penal action.
Further, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
Page 5 of 8In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration Page 6 of 8 of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The Commission would also like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:
"25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of 'Monitoring and Reporting' conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority".
26. "For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. Page 7 of 8 dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act."
In furtherance to the above directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Secretary of Central Information Commission vide letter dated 12.02.2024, has requested the Respondent Public Authority, to take necessary action for implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Accordingly, the Respondent is advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking such information and not any specific record. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)