Central Information Commission
Vijay Pal vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 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/DDATY/A/2017/167065-BJ+
CIC/DDATY/A/2017/167067-BJ
Mr. Vijay Pal
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Asst. Director (IL) Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023
2. CPIO
Dy. Director (LM)/NZ, Delhi Development Authority
Office of the Dy. Director (LM) North Zone, LSC
LU - Block, Pitam Pura, New Delhi - 110034
3. CPIO
Dy. Director (RTI), Nodal Officer
Delhi Development Authority (RTI Implementation & Co-ordination Branch)
C - Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi - 110023
4. CPIO
Dy. Director (Lands), Delhi Development Authority
Office of Dy. Director (Lands), 'A' Block
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - 110023
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.05.2019
Date of Decision : 14.05.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2017/167065-BJ Date of RTI application 24.07.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 21.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.09.2017 Page 1 of 7 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the complaints filed by the applicant regarding illegal encroachment, construction and unauthorized use and occupation of the Government Property/ Land falling in the village Dhirpur, now Nirankari Colony by Sant Nirankari Mandal, action taken on the complaint, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2017/167067-BJ Date of RTI application 24.07.2017 CPIO's response 30.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 21.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.09.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the complaints filed by the applicant regarding illegal encroachment, construction and unauthorized use and occupation of the Government Property/ Land falling in the village Dhirpur, now Nirankari Colony by Sant Nirankari Mandal, action taken on the complaint, etc. The DD (LM) NZ vide its letter dated 30.08.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant providing details on point no. d of the RTI application. As regards the remaining points the application was forwarded to the DD/ IL, DDA. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. 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: Mr. Vijay Pal;
Respondent: Mr. Anand Kumar, AD, Mr. Karan Singh, KGO and Mr. R. K. Sharma, Dy. Dir (Lands);
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and correct information had not been received by him in these matters. It was explained that the DDA land allotted to Sant Nirankari Mandal, Dhirpur was being misused and that the details of charitable hospital / complex for construction by Urban Arts Council were not provided. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the information pertaining to their Wing had been furnished but the remaining issues concerning IL Wing were transferred to them for further necessary action. The Commission was in receipt of a copy of the reply dated 06.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2017/167067-BJ) sent by the Asst. Director (IL), DDA addressed to the Appellant wherein a point wise response was provided.Page 2 of 7
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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 Page 3 of 7 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission further observed that the issues raised in the RTI application pertained to the Complaints alleging illegal encroachments of Government Property which is a matter of larger public interest and details pertaining to the same should be suo motu disclosed in the interest of transparency and accountability within the public authority. It was observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of Page 4 of 7 independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Commission further observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
In the present instance on the perusal of the reply dated 06.05.2019 it was noted that the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) of the Act had not been made. Even assuming that the application was transferred, it cannot be said that the transferring authority can be completely absolved of his duties and responsibilities as CPIO thereafter. In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be Page 5 of 7 taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, in Ministry Of Railways Through ... vs Girish Mittal on 12 September, 2014 W.P.(C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"15. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act is clearly misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case where penalty has been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials."
A reference can also be made to a recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shikha Bagga Vs. Public Information Officer, Directorate of Education and Another's, in W. P. (C) 4172/2017 dated 13.07.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"4. Clearly, transferring the petitioner's application to various schools is unsustainable. The PIO is required to provide all such information as sought for, subject to the exceptions as provided under the Act
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letters/orders dated 18.04.2017 and 22.04.2017 transferring the petitioner's application to various officers and various schools are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's application be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law"
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Page 6 of 7DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Pr. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, DDA to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to examine the RTI application and furnish a cogent and precise reply to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
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: 14.05.2019
Copy to:
1. The Pr. Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, B-Block, 4th Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.Page 7 of 7