Central Information Commission
Asha vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 28 May, 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.(s):- CIC/MOURB/A/2017/102113-BJ+
CIC/MOURB/A/2017/156111-BJ
Ms. C. A. Asha
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Under Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Delhi Division, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi - 110011
2. CPIO
Ministry of Railway, Northern Railway (HQ)
Baroda House, New Delhi - 110001
3. CPIO
Dy. Director, RTI, DDA (RTI Implementation and Co-ordination Branch)
C - Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
4. CPIO
Dy. Director (DUSIB), UD Department
Delhi Sectt., New Delhi - 110002
5. CPIO
Director (RTI), DDA
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2019
Date of Decision : 28.05.2019
Page 1 of 7
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/MOURB/A/2017/102113-BJ Date of RTI application 26.08.2016 CPIO's response 12.09.2016 Date of the First Appeal 17.10.2016 First Appellate Authority's response 08.12.2016 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 11.01.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the compliance of the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 776/1998 dated 06.11.2000 regarding eviction of illegal encroachers/ unauthorized construction from Railway land at Priyadarshini J.J. Colony etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.09.2016 replied that the information could be treated as 'Nil' since the issues raised in the application pertained to the M/o Railways, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) DDA, Director Local Bodies (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and L&DA. Hence his application was transferred to the aforementioned authorities. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.12.2016 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/MOURB/A/2017/156111-BJ
Date of RTI application 20.12.2016
CPIO's response 13.02.2017,
21.02.2017
Date of the First Appeal 12.02.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 11.08.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the action taken on the decisions of the High Court in Writ No. 776/1999 dated 06.09.2000, 364/1997 dated 24.08.2000, 4540/2008 dated 20.08.2008, 1230/1998 dated 27.09.2002, 511/1998 dated 20.09.2000 and 6583/1998 dated 25.02.2002, action taken on her representations, if action not taken then reasons for the same, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The CPIO and US, M/o UD, Delhi Division, vide its reply dated 13.02.2017 transferred the RTI application to the DDA; Director (Local Bodies), Govt of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. Subsequently, the Nodal Officer (RTI)/ Dy. Secy., D/o Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide its letter dated 21.02.2017 transferred the RTI Page 2 of 7 application to the M/o Railway, Northern Railway Hq, New Delhi and PIO (BSUP). The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sohan Pal Sharma, Asst. Dir. (Lands), Mr. Dheer Singh, KGO, Mr. Raj Kumar, US, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Sr. Law Officer (for and on behalf of PIO/Legal/DDA) and Mr. Abdul Dayyan, Dy. Dir.;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The notice of hearing sent to the Appellant returned undelivered. The Respondent (DDA) informed the Commission that this subject matter was not dealt with by them. In its reply, the Respondent (DUSIB) explained that the matter had been considered by the Commission and in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 14.03.2018, a copy of the policy dated 11.12.2017 and the copy of costing of flats calculated as per policy was furnished to the Appellant before the Commission itself on 14.03.2018. A copy was also sent to the Appellant through Speed Post which was returned undelivered due to wrong address. Subsequently they ascertained the correct address as 608, Amba Tower, DC Chowk, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi 110085 which was delivered. Further explaining the background of the case, it was submitted by Respondent (H&UA) that the subject matter related to removal of jhuggis and therefore the RTI application was transferred to the concerned public authority i.e. DDA / Director Local Bodies (GNCTD) and DUSIB. It was further stated that while filing counter affidavit in contempt petition No. 1164/2016 titled M/s Serving Humanity (Registered NGO) and Shri Arun Arora & Ors., the High Court of Delhi was informed that DDA had intimated that as per revenue records of Revenue Estate, Sadar Bazar for the year 1974-1975, the suit land i.e. Priyadarshini J.J. Colony, Pull Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi belongs to Northern Railways and therefore Ministry of Railways is responsible to vacate the land. Correspondence had been held by the Chief Secretary (GNCTD), VC, DDA and CRB for taking action for removal of encroachment / illegal construction in compliance with the order dated 06.11.2000 of High Court of Delhi in WP 364/1997. The First Appeal filed by the Appellant was not received in their office. The representative of DDA informed that they had no role to play for implementation of the compliance of the High Court order / judgment as the same fell within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Authority i.e. Ministry of Railways. The updated status had already been intimated to the Appellant by DUSIB at her correct address.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.05.2019, (Appeal No. CIC/MOURB/A/2017/102113-BJ) wherein it is humbly submitted that as the information sought by the applicant was not available with CPIO, a 'Nil' reply was given on 12.09.2016. Moreover, as the issues raised in the application were concerned with other Public Authorities, the same had been transferred to the concerned authorities, i.e. Ministry of Railways, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and L&DO with a request to provide the requisite information to the applicant. As regards, First Appeal of Ms. C. A. Asha, the same was not received in Desk - IV of Delhi Division, which concerns them.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.05.2019, (Appeal No. CIC/MOURB/A/2017/156111-BJ) wherein it is submitted that since the aforesaid letters were not received by the CPIO, a 'Nil' reply was given to the applicant on 13.02.2017.
Page 3 of 7Moreover, since the matter was related to removal of jhuggis, the RTI application was transferred to the concerned Public Authorities viz. Delhi Development Authority, Director Local Bodies (GNCTD) and Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board vide letter dated 13.02.2017, with a request to provide the requisite information to the applicant. It was further submitted that, while filling Counter Affidavit in Contempt Petition ( C ) No. 1164/2016 titled as M/s. Serving Humanity (Regd. NGO) and Shri Arun Arora & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was informed that Delhi Development Authority has intimated that, as per the revenue record of Revenue Estate Sadar Bazar for the year 1974-75, the suit land i.e. Priyadashani JJ Colony, Pull Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, belonged to Northern Railways, which was under
the administrative control of Ministry of Railways. Hence, Ministry of Railways was responsible to vacate the land and their Ministry had no role to play in that matter. It was also submitted that, on receipt of the Contempt Petition, their Ministry vide letter dated 20.12.2016 had written to Chief Secretary (GNCTD), VC (DDA) and Chairman (Railway Board) for taking necessary action for removal/vacation of encroachment/illegal construction in the Priyadarshani JJ Colony, Pull Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in compliance of Order dated 06.11.2000 of the Hon'ble Court, New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 364/1997. However, the above facts/letter dated 20.12.2016 of their Ministry, could not be provided to the applicant due to oversight. Now, a copy of the said letter dated 20.12.2016 was being forwarded to her for information. As regards, First Appeal dated 12.02.2017 it was stated that the same was not received in Desk - IV of Delhi Division, which concerned them.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the SLO/ PIO Legal Department, DDA dated 23.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/MOURB/A/2017/156111-BJ) wherein it was stated that the information sought pertained to action taken report/ implementation/ compliance of Court orders/ Judgments which was purely administration function and was to be complied with the concerned administrative branch. Hence, the RTI application was transferred u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 by his predecessor vide letter dated 04.01.2017 to the o/o the Dy. Director (PIO/RTI/Lands). The Appellant thereafter filed many applications on the same subject vide applications dated 28.06.2016, 18.08.2016, 27.08.2016, 20.12.2016 (present application) and 11.02.2017 and preferred various appeals before the Commission in Appeal Nos. CIC/NDMCC/A/2017/157125, CIC/DUACO/A/2017/100546, CIC/DLSEC/A/2017/191250, CIC/DDATY/A/2017/102344, CIC/DOVRD/A/2017/189588, CIC/DDATY/A/2017/192105, CIC/DOURD/A/2017/192106, CIC/DDATY/A/2017/191246, CIC/DLSEC/A/2017/193359, CIC/NDMCC/A/2017/100544, CIC/DOURD/A/2017/193359, CIC/DOURD/A/2017/158031 which was decided on 14.03.2017 issuing directions to the Delhi Urban Shelter Implementation Board and Railway board. The present appeal was also based on the same facts and relied and was filed against the reply of the Dy Director (PIO) lands, DDA and not against them. It was further stated that a notice was also issued to appear against the said RTI on 24.01.2019 in response to which they had filed a written submission on 12.02.2019. It was stated that they appeared for hearing for the said matter on 18.02.2019 and order passed disposing off the Appeals on 18.02.2019 with direction to the Chief Executive Officer/ DUSIB. Furthermore, it was stated that the Law Department, DDA had no role to play in the implementation/ compliance of Court orders judgments as the same was a purely administrative function to be complied by the concerned administrative branch. Thus, it was prayed to dismiss the Appeal against them.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
Page 4 of 7"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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Page 5 of 7The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as Page 6 of 7 expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondents present at the hearing, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of her grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand 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: 28.05.2019
Page 7 of 7