Central Information Commission
Y Akbar Ahmed vs Indian Army on 8 April, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली Ð 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159679 +
CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159793+
CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159867+
CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159863
In the matter of:
Y Akbar Ahmed
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
O/o the Cantonment Board,
St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600016
...Respondent
File No. 159679 159793 159867 159863
RTI application 08/07/2019 01/07/2019 03/08/2019 01/09/2019
filed on
CPIO replied on Not on record Not on record Not on record Not on record
First appeal filed 13/08/2019 13/08/2019 10/10/2019 09/10/2019
on
First Appellate Not on record Not on record Not on record Not on record
Authority order
Second Appeal 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 05/12/2019 05/12/2019
filed on
Date of Hearing 07/04/2021 07/04/2021 07/04/2021 07/04/2021
Date of Decision 07/04/2021 07/04/2021 07/04/2021 07/04/2021
1
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant cover similar issues. Hence, for the sake of brevity, all the cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Krishnamurthy, Office Superintendent & CPIO alongwith Shri Satish Kumar, Assistant Engineer and CPIO, both present over VC File No.159679 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Number of letters/petitions/representations/complaints, received from the public by the Cantonment Board with respect to issues relating to unauthorized/deviated/violated buildings, from 01.01.2014 to 05.07.2019?
2. Details with addresses of the unauthorized/deviated/violated buildings, within the Jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board, Chennai.
3. The Number of unauthorized/deviated/violated buildings, de-occupied, locked/sealed, demolished by the Cantonment Board from 01.01.2014 to 05.07.2019?
4. And other related information.
File No.159793 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information
1. Provide the detailed information, whether the concerned party gave a Notice in writing to the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, as per Section 235 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, with respect to the demolition and new construction of building at door No. 3/98, in G.L.R.S No: 256/134, bearing S. No 1791, in Mettu Street, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Whether the concerned party received the approved plan for demolition and new construction of the said Building in the year 2011, vide CEO's Order No. 433 dated 13/10/2011?
a) If yes, then provide me a copy of the aforesaid Notice.
2. Whether the CEO of the Cantonment Board, validated the Notice received under section 235 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, as per the procedure defined under section 236 (2) of the Cantonments Act 2006, with respect to the 2 Building at door No. 3/98, in G.L.R.S No: 256/134, bearing S. No.1791, in Mettu Street, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai?
a) If validated the Notice, then provide a copy of the same.
b) If no, provide reasons for the same.
3. Whether the CEO of the cantonment Board has initiated action with respect to the Building at door No. 3/98 referred to above.
a) if action was initiated, then provide a copy of the same.
b) If no action was initiated, then provide reasons for the same.
4. And other related information.
File No.159867 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether CEO of CB lodged an F.I.R with the Police, against the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Jumma Masjid committee for clearly committing fraud and cheating with the Cantonment Board office by submitting forged and false documents and obtained approved plan for construction of building at door No. 3/98, in G.L.R.S No:256/134, Bearing No.1791, in Mettu Street, St. Thomas Mount Chennai. The aforesaid property did not belong to Jumma Masjid committee or Waqf Board.
2. Provide the information regarding:
a) Based on what documents and Revenue Records the CEO, CB issued approved plan for doing the construction of Building at door No.3/98 mentioned above.
b) Provide the copies of the documents and Revenue Records or any Registered Documents or Encumbrance certificate received by the CEO, CB, after which he sanctioned the approved Plan for doing the construction at door No.3/98, mentioned above.
c & d). And other related information. File No.159863 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information
1. Whether the President of Butt Jumma Masjid Committee, demolished the unauthorized part of construction carried out in the Property at door No.3/98, in G.L.R.S No: 265/134, Bearing S.No. 1791, in Mettu Street, St. Thomas, Chennai, as specified in the Notices issued by the CEO, CB, vide notice No. 3 STM/Works/8/1392 dated 10/07/2017 and No. STM/Works/8/1526 dated 22/07/2019?
2. Provide copies of Report and photos, submitted by the President of Butt Road Jumma Masjid committee, post-demolition of the unauthorized part of construction done in the property at door no: 3/98, referred to above.
3. Provide information regarding CEO, CB, not taking Police assistance, as defined under section 320 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 to demolish the unauthorized part of construction in the property at door No. 3/98, referred to above.
4). And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal No reply has been given by CPIO. The FAA has also provided false and misleading information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In connection with File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159679, the CPIO submitted that a reply was given to the appellant on 25.03.2021.
In connection with File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159793, the CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to 25.07.2019.
In connection with File No.s CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159867 & CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159863, the CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to 02.01.2020.
The appellant submitted that whatever reply was given to him for all of his above mentioned RTI applications, the same were not given in connection with the RTI applications but were the replies given to his various complaints and representations. He also submitted that even though some reply was given but there has been a delay of more than 02 years in giving any response to him either to his complaint petitions or to the RTI applications and he has received all the replies referred to by the CPIO only on 26.03.2021 i.e. after the receipt of the CIC's hearing notice. He also submitted that the reply dated 02.01.2020 has not been received by him till date. He prayed that the CPIO may be directed to provide the desired information to him.4
Observations:
At the outset, it is noted that in all the cases mentioned above, there is nothing on the records of the Commission from where it could be ascertained that a reply was given to the appellant. During the hearing, when the CPIO was asked to explain as to whether any reply was given to these RTI applications or not, he referred to various letters and submitted that in connection with the RTI application dated 08.07.2019, a reply has been recently given i.e. on 25.03.2021, the RTI application dated 01.07.2019 was replied on 25.07.2019 and in other two cases the reply was given on 02.01.2020. Since all these replies were not on the records of the Commission nor the CPIO had sent any written submissions in advance, the CPIO was asked to read the contents of these letters one by one. After hearing the contents of these letters, it is noted that none of the RTI application has been properly addressed and rather than giving a point-wise reply, a clubbed response was given to the issues raised by the appellant in his representations rather than the points raised in the RTI application. It is therefore deemed appropriate that a revised reply should be given in all the above mentioned RTI applications in a point-wise manner.
It is further noted that there was inordinate delay in providing a reply to the RTI applications and the CPIO had no reason to explain the delay caused. The Commission therefore expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO in handling the RTI applications in such a negligent manner and also for not being properly prepared for the hearing.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI applications afresh and provide a point-wise reply to all the RTI applications and in case any exemption is claimed, the same should be properly justified. The CPIO should note that in case of non-compliance of this order, the CPIO will be up for penalty without any further reference to him. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The CPIO is also issued a warned to strictly follow the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act failing which necessary action may be initiated against him.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.5
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचना आयु") Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ%मा&णत स)या*पत %ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 6