Central Information Commission
Anil Dutt Sharma vs Mcd on 4 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/122936
ANIL DUTT SHARMA .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Executive Engineer (Building)-II,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Shahdara
North Zone, Near Keshav Chowk,
G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2024
Date of Decision : 03.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 14.12.2022
First appeal filed on : 20.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 29.10.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"The applicant had made complaints on 01.09.2022, 13.09.2022 to the Deputy Commissioner sh. Amit Kumar and EE (B-II) Sh. Deepak Goel and its reminders were sent on 20.09.2022, 30.09.2022, 10.10.2022, 14.10.2022, 20.10.2022 and 31.10.2022. Please provide me information in this regard:
1. Provide me copy of complaints/reminders or inform the name of the officers who had participated in decision making process on received of complaints under reference, inform the dates of their participation and what decisions were taken thereupon.
2. Inform the role of Deputy Commissioner Sh. Amit and SE (B-II) Sh. Deepak in entire process.
3. Provide me policy of MCD under which complaints of public are received and dealt with. (if not available, the PIO may resort section 5(4)/6(3) of RTI Act.
4. Inform the status of all the properties in view of inspection under Modal Building Bye Laws, section 344, 343 345A and 466A DMC Act or constructed as per sanctioned plan which are mentioned in the said complaints.
5. Inform the name of concerned officers of MCD who were/are appointed in the Building Department of Shahadra North zone under section 89 DMC Act (during the periods when complaints were received and disposed off) did not breach to the departmental regulations (within the definition of section 95 DMC Act) against the properties mentioned in the complaints rather they discharged their duty under Modal Building Bye Laws 2016/inspection and preparation of report, to ascertain that mentioned properties have been constructed as per sanctioned plan and authorized and to take action section 344, 343 345A and 466A DMC Act).
A. If did not breach to the departmental regulations (within the definition of section 95 DMC) then provide me copy of inspection reports of properties and specific record in which it is mentioned that subject properties of complaints are authorized and constructed as per sanctioned plan or record of action taken under section 344, 343 345A and 466A DMC Act.Page 2 of 6
B. If sought information in the query no. 5 is not available then inform the properties numbers and name of the concerned officers who had breached departmental regulations against those properties.
C. Inform the address of the properties out of subject properties of complaints against which inspection and action under section 344, 343 345A and 466A DMC Act is not attracted."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 14.12.2022 stating as under:
"1 No such information is available on record in this office.2 As per point No. 1 above. 3 As per point No. 1 above. 4 As per point No. 1 above.
5 No such information is available on record in this office.
A As per point No. 5 above.
B As per point No. 5 above.
C As per point No. 5 above."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 22.03.2023, held as under:
"The ground for appeal was dissatisfaction with the information provided by the PIO/EE(B)-II/SH(N) and therefore appellant has filed this appeal. During the course of hearing, information sought and reply provided by the PIO was examined, discussed with the representative of PIO, It is observed that PIO has not provided the information as sought in the RTI. The information needs to be provided as available in the office record. Decision The appeal is accordingly disposed off with the directions. Modified reply containing the information be provided to the appellant as available in your office record within 10 days from the date of issue this order. Further, if the appellant is not satisfied with the decision, he may file the Page 3 of 6 2nd Appeal as per section 19 of the RTI Act-2005 within 90 days of the issue of this order before Central Information Commission, Room No-415, 4th Floor, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka New Delhi-."
In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 05.04.2023 stating as under:
"1 No such information is available on record in this office.2 As per point No. I above. 3 As per point No. 1 above. 4 As per point No. 1 above.
5 No such information is available on record in this office.
A As per point No. 6 above.
B As per point No. 5 above.
C As per point No. 5 above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Arun Rawat, Assistant Engineer, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite service of the hearing notice on 06.11.2024, as per the remarks of postal authority.
The Respondent submitted that their office had not received the averred representations from the Appellant on which he is seeking information in the instant RTI Application and therefore, no information could be given to the Appellant. He added that the Appellant is filing repeated RTI Applications on the same subject matters to different offices of MCD.Page 4 of 6
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent had not received the averred representations from the Appellant on which he is seeking information in the instant RTI Application. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant has not placed on record the copies of the averred representations before the bench at the time of filing the instant Second Appeal nor has he participated in the hearing to contest his case. No relief can be given to the Appellant in the instant matter.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 90 cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authority had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 3 cases including the present case are listed for today's hearing. The Appellant had filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.Page 5 of 6
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty- five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
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 Date Copy To:
The FAA Superintending Engineer - II, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Shahdara North Zone, Near Keshav Chowk, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)