Central Information Commission
V. P. Chugh vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 April, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.. CIC/DDATY/A/2018/173672
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/173901
V.P. Chugh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Delhi Development
Authority, New Delhi. ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29-05-2018 FA : 23-07-2018 SA : 26-12-2018
CPIO : 07-10-2020 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 13-10-2020
ORDER
1. Since the matter involves adjudication of identical legal issues, these second appeals are being clubbed together.
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/173672
2. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi seeking following information:-
"Certified copy of Challan/amount of premium paid for land by Bal Jyoti Educational Society and certified copy of payment receipts of any payment made by society from allotment till date."Page 1 of 3
CIC/DDATY/A/2018/173901
3. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi seeking following information:-
"Certified copy of letter of allotment contained in their file No. F19(5)79-Inst. relating to allotment of land to Bal Jyoti Educational Society or Nursery School in Paschim Vihar and certified copy of amount of premium paid and any other amount paid by Society for land."
4. The CPIO responded on 07-10-2020. The appellant filed the first appeal(s) dated 23- 07-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority.Thereafter, he filed the second appeal(s) u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information. Hearing:
5. The appellant, Mr. V.P. Chugh was represented by Mr. Sunil Gupta through audio conferencing. Mr. Shyam Singh Rawat, AD/Institutional Land Branch participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
6. The representative of the appellant contended that the appellant is seeking information in the capacity of President of Bal Jyoti Educational Society and therefore, the sought for information should be provided to him.
7. The respondent contended that the relevant property file bearing No.19(5)79/IL as mentioned by the applicant is not readily traceable in the records of their department. However, as soon as the file is traced out, the requisiteinformation would be provided directly to the applicant without any delay.
Decision:
8. It is regretted that the reply to the RTI application has been causally given without clearly mentioning as to whether the public authority has custody of the information.
The CPIO has not applied his mind while sending the reply dated 07- 10-2020 and therefore, he is cautioned to be more meticulous in future. Even the then CPIO did not bother to respond to the RTI application timely and therefore, he is directed to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for willfully denying the information, within a period of 15 working days from thedate of receipt of this order.
Page 2 of 39. This Commission further directs the Controlling Authority (Commissioner/LD) of the CPIO to constitute a committee to search the property papers of the appellant and furnish the same, if available, free of cost, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. In case the respondent is unable to trace his property papers/concerned file, the CPIO shall furnish an affidavit to the appellant thereby clearly indicating the efforts made by him for locating the said file, within the next 15 working days under intimation to the CIC.
10. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Page 3 of 3
Adjunct Proceedings
Date of Show-Cause Hearing : 26.04.2022
Date of Decision : 26.04.2022
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Respondent: Mr. S.S. Rawat, PIO, Assistant Director, O/o. C.E.(P), Shahpur Jat, DDA, present.
Upon Commission's instance, PIO submitted relevant information, as sought by Appellant in instant RTI Application, is not available on record and he filed a relevant affidavit with regards to same.
He also submitted that such affidavit would also be furnished to the Appellant. Furthermore, PIO apologized for his conduct of late reply furnished on the instant RTI Application, submitting that such conduct would not repeat in future dealing of RTI Applications.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission, on the basis of perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of affidavit to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Furthermore, in light of the aforesaid submissions made by PIO during hearing, the Commission rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:Page 4 of 3
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought.
Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise his due diligence. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
The show-cause proceedings is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 3