CIC, DDA AND RTI ACT


M K Gupta
RTI Consultant and Free Lance Journalist

Citizens feel that the Central Information Commission is soft towards the Delhi Development Authority. Before forming any conclusive opinion on the subject, some decisions of the CIC on DDA are being reproduced.

2 There have been contradictory decisions wherein one Information Commissioner dismissed the appeal and the other Commissioner allowed the same. The appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00045 of Rakesh Kumar Gupta against the DDA was dismissed on 27.2.2009 by the Information Commissioner, M. L. Sharma. DDA pleaded that the Appellant had sought inspection of files relating to third party, having alleged business motive of the appellant behind the entire exercise. (Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00045/SG/4469). The case was allowed by Information Commissioner, Shailash Gandhi on 18.8.09 citing Sections 3 and 6 (2) of the RTI Act. Sec. 3 states that all citizens shall have the right to information while according to sec. 6 (2) the applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information. He further stated in his decision that the Parliament was very clear in its thinking that since right to information is the fundamental right of citizens and citizens own the information, no reasons need to be given for accessing the information. In fact, the Parliament expected that Public Authorities to put up most of the information into public domain suo moto as mandated under Section 4. (CIC/SG/A/2008/00045). Unfortunately decision has chosen to ignore such important provisions.

3. In a case against the DDA V/s. M.K Gupta, Information Commissioner, M. L. Sharma mentioned in the decision that “The complainant did not appear before the Commission” despite the fact that he was present. Later, on representation by the Complainant, Assistant Registrar, K. L. Das, informed, “it has been wrongly mentioned in the order passed by the Commission that you did not appear before the Commission. The Commission regrets the clerical error. (Case No. CIC/LS/C/2009/00230).

4. In the case of Mujibur Rehman V/s. Delhi High Court (W.P.) (C) No. 3845/2007) delivered on 28th April, 09, Justice S. Ravinder Bhat observed that “primary discretion in such cases is with the statutory Tribunal. (CIC). At the same time, once it is established that the Tribunal, for no apparent reason, either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it, the High Court would be justified in interfering with its orders.

5. The Commission in many cases has failed to exercise its jurisdiction lawfully vested in it is evident from the fact that under Section 20 (1) of the Act, it is empowered to impose a penalty. Under section 20 (2), Commission is also authorized to recommend the disciplinary action against the PIO for giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. Failure to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in the Commission is the main cause of increasing complaints and appeals in the Commission.

6. On providing the information available which is also available on the website, the views of the Information Commissioners are contradictory. Information Commissioner. Shailash Gandhi has expressed views in the meeting organized by Urja said that the PIO is bound to furnish the information even if the same is available on the website as every body does not have access to the websites and as well as computer savvy. In a decision in the case of Mr. Harish Kochhar V/s. CBSE, he said, “All applicants may not have access to websites. Whereas it is helpful to give information on the website, the Public Information Officer must always offer to give the same on a CD or hard copies,” On this, views of M. L. Sharma, Information Commissioner are contradictory. In the case of Amit Gupta V/s. DDA (Case No.CIC/LS/A/2009/000704 dated 2.9.09), Mr. Sharma, dismissed appeal for furnishing the information stating that the information was available on public domain and could be downloaded from the DDA website. In view of this, the appeal was dismissed. On such matters, Commission should form unanimous views by discussing the issue.

7. In the case of Shri Gyanender V/s. DDA (CIC/LS/a/2009/000690 dated 3.9.09), M. L. Sharma, IC ruled that since information has been supplied, therefore, the application is dismissed. In the absence of knowledge whether the Appellant has prayed for imposition of penalty or not, one cannot question his decision of not imposing any penalty by him. However, the Commission can caution the DDA that the delay in supplying the information has been viewed adversely, as has been done in the case of Virender Kumar Jain. (Case No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000373 dated 3.7.09).

8. Proceedings should not be aiming at settling grievances but for proving information and in the course of providing information under the RTI Act. Despite this, many times, Information Commissioner asks the appellants whether they are interested in solving problem or getting the information or in punitive action against the Public Authority upon the failure to provide information. Many of the decisions of CIC are in the nature of arbitration proceedings than aiming at providing information by cautioning the PIOs of taking the punitive actions under the Act if the information is not provided.

9. Such decision, as has been taken in the aforesaid case of Gyanender have emboldened the DDA to refrain from furnishing information at the first instance and within the time stipulated in the Act and to resort to the practice of providing information during the course of hearing. Only few applicants have the wherewithal to approach the CIC.

10. The Commission has constituted a Committee on 22.9.09 for conducting an inquiry in to the servicing of RTI Act by all the Wings and Sections of DDA in view of the large number of complaint against the DDA.

Labels: , ,