Information regarding complaint - CIC: It is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given: Only required to be ascertained if it has been denied with a malafide intention or an unreasonable cause
O R D E R
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:
- Please provide inspection of all the files pertaining to the anbove enquiry and thereafter identified copies therefrom of the notings as well as all the documents contained in the file(s) as per records.
- Please provide present status of the enquiry as per records.
- If the complaint has been closed, please provide copy of the closure reort along with all annexures as per records.
- Since the CVC guidelines and numerous emails therefrom stipulated a maximum time of 3 months to conclude the enquiries, please provide the copy of the reasons recorded by the EO to exceed the stipulated time of 3 months as per records.
As specifically brought to your notice during the hearing and the documents submitted therein, please provide the relevant extract from the notings/ report/ documents/ evidence/ statement(s) or any such (to be read as ejusdem generis) shedding explanations/ arguments/ clarifications or any such on the following:
- Why was the request obtained from Pawan Kumar Gupta despite specific instructions from LC that the request should come from Original allottee.
- Why did the specimen signature sheet submitted on 25.02.2009 carry notary attestation dated 12.03.2009
- Why was the incorrect name of the father of Original allottee in the specimen signature sheet ignoared by the officials
- Why did the DM (Rec) ignore the directions of the LC to call the transfer related documents from Original allottee and issued letter only to Pawan Kumar Gupta
- Why was the transfer intimation letter not sent to the orginal allottee by Post desite knowledge regarding changed address of the allottee
- Why did the fact that the Allottee applied for conveyance on his own favour in 2003 and followed it up even till 2005 not raise suspicion on the averment of the transferee regarding a family settlement dating back to 1998
The CPIO vide letter dated 21-03-2023, furnished a reply to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: The respondent Shri Vikas Gupta, DM attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information was wrongly denied to him by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that he had sought information regarding files pertaining to the grievance/ complaint of the undersigned and the subsequent hearing accorded to the undersigned was sought. Further, he informed that the CPIO has refused to provide the same stating that the matter was is process. He also informed that after the FAA order the CPIO continued his tirade of obstructing the flow of information to the applicant by stating that the matter is sub-judice without providing details of any express orders of such Courts and the extracts sought were not specific and were not under RTI purview. Further, the appellant requested the Commission to pass appropriate directions to ensure strict action against CPIO for obstructing the flow of information to the appellant, thereby exposing him to great hardship as he could not approach the competent authorities to press for his rights/ claim. The appellant also requested the Commission to consider the fact that it is not the first time that the CPIO has obstructed the flow of information to the complainant and that their whimsical acts have largely remained undeterred.
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that Shed No. 47, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, was allotted to the appellant on a Hire Purchase basis via a letter dated 27.4.1989, the appellant applied for the execution of a conveyance deed in his name via letter dated 06.05.2003. In a letter dated 19.07.2005 issued by the then Chief Manager (Recovery), the appellant was asked to submit a duly filled conveyance deed form along with other requisite documents but no response was received from him, je said . Further, In 2008, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta, the real brother of Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, applied for the transfer of Shed No. 47 at Okhla Industrial Complex, Phase-1, In his favor, referring to a family settlement deed executed on 14.3.1998. Therefore, the transfer of Shed No. 47 to his real brother was executed on 15.9.2009, based on documents submitted by him, legal advice, and approval from the competent authority, i.e. MD, DSIIDC. Subsequently, he said, Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta complained that the transfer of Shed No. 47 in the name of his real brother was executed based on forged documents/signatures. The first complaint was received in the Vigilance Division, DSIIDC in 2019, dated 15.02.2019.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission notes the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Taking into consideration, the Commission directs the concerned Ministry/Department to submit an explanation to the Commission by 16.11.2023 mentioning the reason why the RTI application could not be responded properly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, CIC/DSIDC/C/2023/637676-UM; Date of Decision: 01.11.2023