CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Date of Hearing : Date of Decision : F. No.CIC/KY/A/2016/00391-YA CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2015/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ Appellant/Complainant : Shri Jitender Kaushik, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi Through: Sh. Laxman Singh and Sh. O P Ojha, EE(B) Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Since common parties are involved in the present appeals, they are being clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Relevant facts emerging from appeal: Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal filed FAA order 2 nd appeal filed on No reply CIC/KY/A/2016/00391-YA CIC/YA/A/2016/ CIC/YA/A/2016/ Information sought and background of the case: The three aforementioned cases arise out of the same RTI application dated filed by the Applicant before, PIO (Vigilance), EDMC. While in two of the cases, the PIO (Vig.) has denied information invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, in the case no. CIC/YA/A/2016/000479, the RTI

2 application seems to have been responded by the PIO/EE(Bldg.I), Shahdara South Zone, though copy of response of the APIO is not filed with the concerned Second Appeal. In view of the fact that the three second appeals owe their origin to the same RTI application, the appeals are being adjudicated together. The appellant vide RTI application dated sought information under 8 points regarding unauthorised construction in H. No. 2/72, 60 ft Road, Main Road, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. CPIO vide letter dated denied information on point nos. 1,2 & 8 invoking provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that the matter is under investigation with Senior Investigation Officer, under supervision of AE (Vig.), NDMC. With respect to information on point nos. 3-7 it was responded by the PIO/ADO (Vig.) that information pertains to Building Department Shah (South) Zone. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated disposed of appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission. Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both parties are present and heard. The appellant states that complete information has not been provided against his RTI applications mentioned above. The respondent states that an enquiry pursuant to the appellant s complaint was initiated and is still going on, therefore, the information against the queries 1, 2 and 8 which relate to Vigilance department could not be provided to the appellant. On a query from the Commission as to how long this enquiry will prolong, the respondent assured the Commission that enquiry will be completed in 3-4 weeks and relevant Action Taken Report will be provided to the appellant. It has also been brought to the notice of the Commission that information against remaining queries have been furnished by the PIO s response dated clarifying that the property in question has been booked on for deviations found during inspection by the Respondent. Appellant denies receipt of the information. Decision: After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes with concern that FAA did not bother to look into the issues raised in the RTI application and has not applied his mind nor passed a reasoned order. The mechanical and perfunctory functioning of the First Appellate Authority makes the entire system redundant since the PIO also tends to perform in the most nonchalant manner without addressing the germane issues raised by the information seeker. The case at hand is a fine example as to how the entire RTI Act and regime of transparency sought to be ensured by the Act is

3 handled in such a casual manner by the Respondent officials. This calls for appropriate action to be initiated by the Commissioner, EDMC in deputing responsible and sincere officers to hold positions like that of the First Appellate Authority. The FAAs are cautioned to deal with RTI queries more judiciously in future. The Commissioner should advise all the FAAs under his jurisdiction accordingly. The Commission finds it unconvincing that an Inquiry, as stated by the Respondent was initiated almost two years back the same is still pending finalisation. The public authority cannot conduct an Inquiry with no time limit and continue withholding information till completion of such inquiry. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondent to complete the Inquiry expeditiously and provide a revised reply on points No. 1, 2 & 8 to the appellant within four weeks from receipt of this order. It is further directed that the PIO/EE(B) shall provide a copy of sanction plan of the said property within 4 weeks of receipt of this order. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. CIC/YA/A/2015/ Information sought and background of the case: The appellant vide RTI application dated sought information under 11 points regarding unauthorised construction at H.No. 72(part), North side 60ft. Main Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. CPIO did not respond to the RTI application. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated directed the CPIO to furnish the appropriate reply to the appellant within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAO the appellant approached the Commission Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both parties are present and heard. The appellant states that information sought is not provided to him. The respondent states that with reference to point No. 1,2 and 3 the appellant has sought information related to Vigilance Department and the same was transferred to ADV(Vigilance), EDMC for necessary action. He states that a sanction plan was issued for construction of said building but during inspection some deviation were found and the property was booked for unauthorised construction u/s 343, 344 DMC Act, 1957 (as amended). The appellant contested that he has made a complaint two years back which is still under investigation. The appellant further contends that states that if a deviation is found then he would like to know

4 about action taken by the public authority and if not who is responsible for this lapse. Decision: After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission directs the public authority to give a revised reply in the form of an Action Taken Report to the appellant within 4 weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Yashovardhan Azad) 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. Copy to:- (R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Assistant Director of Vigilance / HQ., Vigialance Department, Headquarters, 419, Udyog Sadan, 2 nd Floor, Patparganj Ind. Area, Delhi Executive Engineer-(Bldg.)-I / Shah. South, 5 th Floor, Karkardooma Court, First Appellate Authority under RTI Director of Vigilance / HQ., Vigialance Department, Headquarters, 419, Udyog Sadan, 2 nd Floor, Patparganj Ind. Area, Delhi Superintendent Admin. / RTI Cell, Administration Department, Headquarters, 419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Ind. Area, Delhi Shri Jitender Kaushik House No.-72, Bhim Gali, Vishwas Road North, Vishwas Nagar, Shahadara,

5 Executive Engineer-(Bldg.)-I / Shah. South, 5 th Floor, Karkardooma Court, Delhi-32. Assistant Engineer-(Bldg.)-I / Shah. South, 5 th Floor, Karkardooma Court, First Appellate Authority under RTI Superintending Engineer-I / Shah. South, Shahadara South Zone, Zonal Office, 3 rd Floor, Karkardooma Court, Shri Jitender Kaushik House No.-72, Bhim Gali, Vishwas Road North, Vishwas Nagar, Shahadara,