Central Information Commission
Kunal Kashyap vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 3 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/634655
द्विकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ALSOI/C/2023/636784
Shri Kunal Kashyap ...द्विकायतकताा
/Complainant
... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Archaeological Survey of India
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024
Date of Decision : 29.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Since both the aforementioned cases arise out of the same RTI Application,
they ae clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Relevant facts emerging from the cases l:
RTI application filed on : 24.09.2022
PIO replied on : 27.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 19.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 14.07.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 20.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"A copy of all information available with reference to permission under section 20C of AMASR Act for file reference F. No. 1/550/CA-MH/Shri Hemraj Shankarlal Mundada - 1000 is available with the Superintending Architect (Mumbai Circle).
w.r.t the order of the Honourable Central Information Commission in Second Appeal CIC/MCULT/A/2018/137491, it was found that an applicant u/s 200 of AMASR Act violated permissions due to the fact that offices of the ASI & NMA (National Monuments Authority) did not share/communicate all approvals/submissions to all relevant offices. We are apprehensive that may be the case here too.Page 1 of 5
Hence, we specifically want the information available at the office of Superintending Archaeologist at Mumbai circle with reference to the said permission. Copy of old NOC attached."
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.10.2022 replied as under:-
"With reference to your online RTI application registration number ALSOI/R/T/22/00160 received by this office on dated 28.09.2022 on the subject cited above, It is to inform you that, the information sought by you is pertains to third party. Hence, the requisite information will be provided only on consent of the concerned. We have sent a letter seeking consent from third party on date 30.09.2022 but no response has been received yet. You will be informed as soon as the information is received from the third party."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2023. The FAA vide letter dated 14.07.2023 forwarded the Appeal to CPIO, RD(West), ASI. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Written submission dated 22.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, ASI, Mumbai Circle and same has been taken on record for perusal. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant/Complainant: Mr. Dhruv Goel, Advocate- Authorise Representative of the Appellant/complainant- participated in the hearing.
Respondent: Mr. Manish Rai, Regional Director (W), Competent Authority, Maharashtra, Mr. Vikas Kumar Das, Mumbai Circle, Mr. Shubho Majumdar, FAA, Mumbai Circle, ASI- participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
Mr. Akshat Kaushik, ASI, CPIO and Mr. Aby P. Vaglese, Legal Consultant, National Monuments Authority- participated in the hearing.
Adv. Dhruv Goel submitted that the relevant information in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished to Appellant/Complainant till date. He further stated that the RTI Application has been transferred from one CPIO to another without any application of mind which thereby has resulted into obstruction in flow of information. He submitted that the First Appeal has not been adjudicated upon and the Appellant has not participated in the hearing of the First Appeal if any. He placed on record previous decision of this Commission on similar issue. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought. He insisted to impose penalty upon the PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly Page 2 of 5 furnished to the Appellant. CPIO, Mumbai Circle stated that information sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their official record and accordingly the First Appeal was transferred to the Regional Director (W) and Competent Authority, Maharashtra. He further stated that the there is no role of ASI, Mumbai Circle for receiving, processing and granting of permission for constructional activities. He stated that Regional Director (WR)), ASI Mumbai ha s been designated as Competent Authority for Maharashtra for receiving and processing the NOC applications in respect of centrally protected monuments in Maharashtra including Mumbai Circle. Mr. Manish Rai, CPIO Regional Director (W), Competent Authority stated that their office has not received the instant RTI Application. However, he offered inspection of records to the Appellant/Complainant.
Decision:
Since both the aforementioned cases arise out of the same RTI Application, they ae clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant/Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission based on the averment made by the parties during hearing, directs the PIO, Regional Director, Competent Authority, Maharashtra to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the concerned PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for the said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In case, relevant record contains any third-party information or any other exempted information then same must be redacted or blacked out prior to the said inspection.
The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.Page 3 of 5
However, it may not be out of place to mention that guidelines specifically mentioning the parameters related to height, architectural design and construction aspects of buildings to carry out any construction or re- construction or repair or renovation of any building or structure within the regulated area in respect of any ancient monument and archaeological site, would ensure transparency in the process of granting NOC/approval for construction activities in regulated areas. Commission notes that the Respondent is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the maximum information related to their department on its website to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authority. Accordingly, the Respondent public authority is advised to place the maximum information related to guidelines/circulars/orders/bye laws specifically mentioning the parameters related to height, and architectural design and construction aspects of buildings to carry out any construction or re- construction or repair or renovation of any building or structure within the regulated area, issued by their department on their official website as per the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI in the larger public interest so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. No further action lies. The Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/634655 is disposed of, accordingly.
As regards the Complaint No. CIC/ALSOI/C/2023/636784, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant/Complainant, hence no action warranted under section 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Complaint is disposed off, accordingly.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)