Central Information Commission
Mrc S Chauhan vs Ministry Of Culture on 16 April, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749
(Two Similar Case)
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of first hearing : 16th April 2015
Date of first order : 16th April 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri C. S. Chauhan
R/o : A/137, LGF, Defence Colony,
N ew Delhi 110024
Name of the Public : 1. Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Archaeological Survey of India,
Red Fort Complex, Delhi110006.
2. Central Public Information Officer, Archaeological Survey of India, 2nd Floor, BlockB, Vikas Bhawan2, Bela Road, Civil Lines, Delhi110054 The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Piyush Bhatt, Assistant Superintending Archaeologist was present in person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749 These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 2.8.2013 and 23.10.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points regarding permission given by the competent authority for construction of basement in certain properties, specified in the application. The RTI application dated 2.8.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002749) was filed to the Archaeological Survey of India. The CPIO in the Office of Competent Authority (NCT of Delhi) responded on 6.9.2013 and asked the Appellant to deposit photocopying charges to get the information covering points No. 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application. He did not provide a clear response to point No. 4 regarding the relevant rules and regulations. The RTI application dated 23.10.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000563) was filed to the National Monuments Authority, Ministry of Culture with the same set of questions. The Regional Director (North) and Competent Authority responded on 20.1.2014 and denied the information on the first three points on the ground that it was third party information. He also did not provide a clear response to point No. 4 regarding the applicable rules and regulations. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal in both the cases.
2. The Archaeological Survey of India were represented at the hearing. However, no one was present on behalf of the National Monuments Authority.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749
3. With regard to the RTI application dated 2.8.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002749), the Appellant submitted that in keeping with the CPIO's reply dated 6.9.2013, he deposited the prescribed amount of photocopying charges on 12.9.2013 to get the information. However, instead of providing the information, a letter dated 13.12.2013 was received from the Competent Authority and CPIO, stating that the records / files pertaining to the issue of NOC were to be transferred shortly from the office of the Special Commissioner, Trade & TaxescumDirector Archaeology to the Office of the Competent Authority and that the requisite information would be supplied after the receipt of those records. Subsequently, as also stated above, with reference to the RTI application dated 23.10.2013, the Regional Director (North) and Competent Authority NCT of Delhi wrote to the Appellant on 20.1.2014, denying the information on the first three points on the ground that it was third party information. However, with the above letter, he provided a chart giving the distance of the nine properties, mentioned by the Appellant in his RTI application, from the nearest CPM, the position regarding approval of basement and the date of permission. The Appellant stated that in the first three points of his RTI application, he had sought copies of the permission orders granted in each case, whether construction of basement had been permitted and if so what was the permitted area of basement. He further submitted that the properties in question are located close to the CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749 Siri Fort. Therefore, it is essential that permissions for construction of basement are granted in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The process ought to be transparent in the larger public interest. The Appellant also stated that information concerning the address of the properties, in respect of which construction permission has been granted, is available on the website of the Respondents. However, on clicking the 'view' button, no further information becomes available. He stated that the intent of the public authority appears to have been to provide full information on its website. However, a large part of it is not available in practice.
4. The Respondents stated that the first reply dated 6.9.2013 was given by Shri Jaspal Singh, Nodal Officer (Archaeology) when the subject was dealt with in the NCT of Delhi. Subsequently, on transfer of the matter to the Archaeological Survey of India, the Regional Director (North) and Competent Authority took a different decision to deny the information in response to points No. 1 to 3. The representative of the Respondents had no clear answer on why copies of the relevant rules and regulations were not provided to the Appellant. (In our view, information concerning such rules and regulations should be available on the website of the public authority). He stated that some of the information in question also involves the National Monuments Authority.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749
5. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We need to look at the relevant rules and regulations before deciding on the extent of information that should be available to the Appellant. Further, we also need to hear the point of view of the National Monuments Authority before taking a final decision June, 2015 at th in this matter. Accordingly, this case is adjourned to be heard again on 5 10.30 a.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. Besides the Archaeological Survey of India, the National Monuments Authority should also be present at the next hearing on 5.6.2015.
6. In the interim, Shri Piyush Bhatt, Assistant Superintending Archaeologist is directed to appear before us, along with the CPIO of the National Monuments Authority, on 12.5.2015 at 3.00 p.m. with the following documents for our perusal:
(i) Copies of the relevant rules and regulations that were applicable when permission was granted in the case of the properties in question during 2011, 2012 and 2013, together with a copy of the latest rules and regulations.
(ii) A written submission on why the 'view' portion on the website of the public authority in respect of the properties, in the case of which permission has been given for construction, has been blocked.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749
7. We also direct Shri Piyush Bhatt, Assistant Superintending Archaeologist to forward a copy of this order by name, immediately on its receipt, by registered post to the concerned CPIO of the National Monuments Authority.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/000563 & CIC/SH/A/2014/002749