Central Information Commission
Kirti Kapoor vs Ministry Of Defence on 28 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/SD/C/2016/000017
Date of Interim Decision: 27/03/2017
Date of Final Order: 28/04/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Kirti Kapoor
G 89, Ground Floor, South City
2, Sec 50, Gurgaon-122018
Respondent(s) : 1. CPIO & Under Secretary
D(Q & C)
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi-110011
2. CPIO
Dte General of Defence Estates
Ulaan Baatar Road
Delhi Cantt-110010
RTI application filed on : 27/11/2015
PIO replied on : No Reply
First appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Authority : NA
order
Complaint dated : 16/03/2016
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information through 4 points regarding the status of her application submitted on 14.06.2013 to the DEO Bareilly Circle for obtaining sanction of MoD on permission to sell occupancy rights of her Bungalow No.27, Bareilly Cantt held on old grant terms.
Grounds for the Complaint:1
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person and assisted by her husband Gen. Deepak Kapoor (Retd.).
Respondent: P.K. Roy, SO & CPIO, O/o Dte. General of Defence Estates, Delhi Cantonment present in person.
Complainant stated that they have not been able to receive appropriate information till date on the status of obtaining sanction from MoD. It was further stated that the DGDE office has no substantial role in providing the information sought in as much as the relevant file records are available with MoD/D (Q&C) which is particularly why the RTI Application was filed with MoD.
Complainant clarified during the hearing that the letter dated 28.01.2015 referred in the notice of hearing is to be read as 28.01.2016.
CPIO submitted that the relevant file is with MoD for processing at their end. He further expressed his inability in referring to any particular correspondences made with regard to the present RTI Application and said he will have to check records.
Observations It occurred to the Commission during the hearing that the notice of hearing mentions the date of RTI Application as 28.01.2015, which although now stands clarified as 28.01.2016 as per Complainant's submission. However, it may be noted that the said letter is in the form of a correspondence of the Complainant in the context of the RTI Application dated 27.11.2015. It may be noted that henceforth the date of RTI Application in the present matter will remain 27.11.2015. It is further observed from the contents of the letter dated 28.01.2016 that there has been a transfer of the RTI Application from MoD to CPIO, Cantonment Board, Bareilly.
Incidentally, the letter dated 28.01.2016 appears to have been considered as a fresh RTI Application by MoD and has been transferred to CPIO, DGDE vide MoD ID No. 25(kk)/201-D(Q&C). Subsequently, the CPIO, DGDE has responded 2 File No. CIC/SD/C/2016/000017 vide letter dated 22.02.2016 that the proposal for seeking government approval for the bungalow under reference has been already forwarded to MoD vide DGDE DO No. 701/2157/RD/DE/CC/2013 dated 15.06.2015 and that the matter is under consideration of MoD.
It cannot be ascertained from the aforesaid, if at all any appropriate reply was provided on the RTI Application dated 27.11.2015 by the CPIO, MoD. It is also not clear as to why the RTI Application has been transferred by MoD/D(Q&C) to other authorities when the relevant files are said to be held by them.
Interim Decision In view of the foregoing, Commission deems it appropriate to initiate an inquiry into the present matter primarily against CPIO & Under Secretary, D(Q&C), MoD and accordingly, is impleaded as first Respondent in the matter. CPIO, DGDE will continue to remain as a party to the matter as the Second Respondent. In doing so the following is ordered:
1. CPIO & Under Secretary, D(Q&C), MoD is hereby directed to appear before the Commission on 19.04.2017 at 3.30 pm along with all relevant records/files pertaining to the subject matter. He is also directed to bring along copy of replies, if any, sent on the RTI Application under reference, copy of which is also enclosed herewith.
2. CPIO, DGDE is hereby directed to appear before the Commission on 19.04.2017 at 3.30 pm along with all relevant documents they posses regarding the reply furnished on the RTI Application under reference and any other relevant file.
The Complaint is reserved for final order.
FINAL DECISION PROCEEDINGS:
The matter was heard as scheduled on 19.04.2017. The following parties were present:3
Complainant: Present in person Respondent No.1: Represented by Shatroopa Sharma, S.O, MoD Respondent No.2: Suresh Nagar, DDG(Lands-4) and P.K. Roy, SO & CPIO, O/o Dte. General of Defence Estates, Delhi Cantonment present in person.
Respondent No.1 submitted in line with the written submission received from the CPIO & Dy. Director (Lands) that the CIC notice of hearing was forwarded to their office by CPIO, DD (Q&C) vide letter dated 05.04.2017 as the file containing the request of the Appellant is being dealt in D(Lands). Further, submitted that MoD/D(Lands) was not aware of the RTI Application until the receipt of Commission's notice of hearing. Even further, the letter dated 23.12.2015 of DGDE referred in Complainant's letter dated 28.01.2016 was also not received in MoD/D(Lands). Further, as regards the RTI Application, it was submitted that the D(Q&C) Section received it on 10.12.2015 and forwarded it to Respondent No.2 on the same day. It was since observed that the concerned file was dealt in D(Lands) Section and at that time the file was sent to Defence(Finance) for their concurrence on the subject, D(Q&C) being aware of this fact and based on the nature and subject of the information sought, forwarded the said RTI Application to DGDE and in continuation the letter dated 28.01.2016 was also forwarded to DGDE by CPIO, DD(Q&C) on 11.02.2016. It is in these circumstances, it was regretted that reply could not be provided on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame. It was lastly submitted that a reply on the RTI Application has been now provided vide letter dated 13.04.2017.
Complainant expressed her anguish over the state of affairs in the office of Respondent No.1 as regards their implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act. She further submitted that it is deplorable that they have been waiting for close to four years despite following due procedure of law for obtaining the sanction and the status still says that the file is under consideration. Besides, it took MoD two years to even send the file for consideration. Complainant reiterated the errors admitted by the Respondents, but contended that it is not appropriate for the Respondent No.1 to say that they were not aware of the fact that RTI Application pertained to them, in as much as within two months of filing the RTI Application, Complainant had adequately intimated vide letters dated 28.01.2016 and 27.02.2016, to Respondent No.1 that matter pertains to MoD only and that it has nothing to do with DGDE. Complainant remarked at the plight of RTI Applicants to be able to get information only after Commission has intervened in the matter. Complainant also questioned if 4 File No. CIC/SD/C/2016/000017 it was appropriate for the office of DG, D(Lands) to defend the conduct of CPIO,D(Q&C) as these are essentially different authorities, while one deals with Cantonments, the other deals with Defence Lands. Furthermore, as regards the reply provided on the RTI Application received by her only on the day of hearing, it was stated that she is not satisfied with the reply given on query nos. (c) & (d) of the RTI Application intimating that no such records are maintained in the Ministry. It was argued that, if the records are not available in the Ministry, it must be available with DGDE as MoD cannot function without these files.
To this, Respondent No.1 countered that the records are generally sent to DGDE and procured from them as per requirement.
Complainant questioned on this averment as to how can MoD send files without retaining any copy thereof.
Complainant was largely aggrieved by the delay in processing of her case of seeking sanction, and wanted the Respondent No.1 to state how much more time it is going to take for the same. Respondent No.1 assured that it is not as if the Complainant's file in lying unattended, it is very much under active consideration. Further, it was submitted that there are similar cases that are pending for approval, and in such a scenario, it has been decided to formulate a policy for processing of these cases and once the same is finalised, the cases will be processed accordingly.
FINAL DECISION:
Commission has heard in detail both the parties and perused the submissions as well as facts on record. It is observed that no reply was provided on the present RTI Application within the stipulated time frame due to the error of judgment of the concerned CPIO of MoD. Further, letter dated 28.01.2016 sent in reference to the original RTI Application was considered as a new RTI Application by Respondent No.2 and replied on 22.02.2016 informing the status of the case file under reference in the RTI Application.
As regards, the contentions of the Complainant pertaining to the process adopted by MoD in dealing with her case of obtaining sanction, it may be noted that the concerns raised during the hearing although are apparent and considered, yet any adjudication on the same is outside the purview of the RTI Act.5
With these observations, Complaint is disposed off.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 6