Central Information Commission
D K Garg vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DDATY/A/2018/116545-BJ
Mr. D. K. Garg
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO and EE(P)/CC 14, DDA
Office of the PIO/EE(P)/C.C. 14
Rohini Office Complex, Madhuban Chowk
Sector - 14, Rohini
New Delhi - 110085
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2019
Date of Decision : 16.09.2019
Date of RTI application 06.11.2017
CPIO's response 09.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 04.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 12/13.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the Heads under which the Maintenance Amount charged together with the Flat Cost for Rohini Heights Apartment would be spent; details of the actual expenditure incurred, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO and EE (P)/ CC 14, DDA, vide its letter dated 09.01.2018 enclosed a copy of the response dated 08.01.2018 wherein a point wise response was provided. The FAA, vide its order dated 12/13.02.2018 while enclosing the copy of the CPIOs response dated 09.01.2018 and their office letter dated 06.02.2018 regretted for the delay in replying to the RTI application for the reason that the field staff was busy in ongoing work of Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 in Sector 36 and 37, Rohini since the work was being monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 5
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Manohar, EE/ Civil, Mr. Ajay Kumar, EE/ ELD-9 and Mr. S. N. Garg, EE(P)/ CC-14, Mr. Pradeep Wadhwa, AO/ H/C, Mr. Ajay Gupta, AO/A/CS and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, AAO / Cash (Housing);
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent (CPIO/ CC-14, DDA) referred to their written submission dated 06.09.2019 and submitted that the RTI application was replied vide their letter dated 09.01.2018 wherein a point wise response dated 08.01.2018 was enclosed wherein it was mentioned that information on point no. 01 and 03 pertaining to the heads under which the maintenance amount would be spent and total maintenance amount collected could be obtained from the FA (H) Division. Regarding point no. 02 pertaining to the actual expenditures incurred on the maintenance of Rohini Heights Apartments, the Appellant was informed that the information would be provided at the end of the Financial Year i.e., March, 2018. Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.02.2018, the RTI application was further transferred to the Financial Advisor (H)/ DDA. Thereafter, FA (H)/ DDA sent a reply dated 09.03.2018 to the Appellant except on point no. 03 which was transferred to the Sr. AO (Cash) Housing/ DDA and Sr. AC (Accounts) Main/ DDA. The First Appeal was also disposed off on 13.02.2018. Subsequently, a joint letter was sent to the EE/ RPD-8/ DDA and FA (Housing)/ DDA on 27.08.2019 for further comments. In response, the EE/ RPD-8 had submitted its reply dated 06.09.2019 in relation to point no. 02 of the RTI application pertaining to the expenditure incurred for the maintenance of the Pkt. GH-IV Sector 29, Rohini. The Respondent representing FA (H) DDA stated that reply on point no. 01 and 02 was already provided by the EE/ RPD-8 and AO/ HAC DDA and that vide their letter dated 13.03.2018 they had forwarded to the Appellant a copy of the response sent by the Sr. AO/ Cash (H), DDA dated 12.03.2018 on point no. 03 of the RTI application.
The Commission was in receipt of a copy of a communication dated 03.09.2019 sent by the PIO and EE (P) CC-14, DDA to the Dy Finance Advisor (H)-1/PIO. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent CPIO and EE (P), CC-14, DDA dated 06.09.2019 wherein the factual position in the matter was narrated.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) 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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 535..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission however observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing Page 3 of 5 transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent (CPIO, CC-14, DDA) to provide another set of documents Page 4 of 5 to the Appellant containing the point wise information as sought by him in the RTI application as also suo motu disclose the details of heads for which the maintenance amount was charged for maintenance of Rohini Heights Apartment, total amount collected and actual expenditures incurred on their website, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and ensure that the details are also updated periodically in the larger public interest.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 16.09.2019
Copy to:
1. The Pr. Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, B-Block, 4th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
1. The Financial Advisor (H), DDA, D Block, 1st Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023
2. FAA and Suptd. Engineer, CC-14, DDA, Rohini Office Complex, Madhuban Chowk, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi 110085 Page 5 of 5