Information regarding House Building advance - The custodian of information did not appear before the CIC despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and hearing notices were issued to them - SCN issued for penalty and compensation
11 Mar, 2025Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 17.01.2023 seeking the following information:
“Ref. my application dt 17th Aug 2022 (Copy Attached) in r/o rebate on House Building advance to me, which has been kept in ABEYANCE since July 2017. More than 4 months have passed, why is the rebate not granted by respected Regional Director of Education till now? Please let me know the current status of my case”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.03.2023 stating as under:
“With reference to your online RTI application dated 17.01.2023 seeking information regarding rebate on House Building Advance, in this regard this is to inform you that the file regarding House Building Advance was returned to the Office of DDE (West-B) by the then RDE (West) on 20.08.2018. Further no communication/file had been received from DDE (West-B) in this regard till date.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2023. The FAA’s order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, APIO/Vice Principal and Shri Naresh Kashyap, Lab Assistant, appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he has sent his representation dated 17th August 2022 in respect of rebate on House Building advance to him, which has been kept in abeyance since July 2017. However, present status of the said representation was not provided till the date of hearing.
In addition to the above, the appellant has filed a detailed written submission dated nil and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submissions is reproduced as under:
1. “That, I was granted Rs. 3,95,000/- as H.B.A @13.5% Pa interest, to buy a flat vide sanction no DE 13(1039)/HBA/2000/980-85 dt.18/01/2001 by Dir. of Education Delhi.
2. The amount was sanctioned with the condition that the employee would get 2.5% rebate on interest if he returned the principal and interest amounts within given time frame and also if fulfills the following five conditions:
(i) Agreement to be made in the prescribed format 5-A, furnish the personal bond and surety from two permanent govt employees is given.
(ii) Mortgage the flat in the name of President of India.
(iii) Proper utilization of sanctioned amount.
(iv) Insurance of the flat of higher amount than HBA granted immediate after taking over the possession of the flat.
(iv) No addition, alteration is to be done in the flat.
3. That, I paid the installments of principal and interest 11% pa (13/5% - 2.5% rebate) amounts regularly even returned the said amount before given time frame.
4. That the above said conditions No (i)-(iii) and (v) were fulfilled 100% as per direction by HBA branch.
5. That, the condition (iv) also fulfilled by getting insurance of the said flat of Rs.10 Lacs on dt 02/02/2009 (copy attached) whereas possession took place on dt.20/10/2003.
The reason of delay for getting insurance of the flat done by me was due to the fact that initially society management used to get insurance of all the 244 flats of the society collectively. Office bearers of the management committee were also residing outside the society premises and due to dispute among management and society members, the managing committee was not functioning properly. When new management came into power, previous management committee members did not handover old records of the society to the new management committee. Therefore, I could get only a few years insurance premium papers, which were attached in the HBA file. Now, from some other members I got some more collective insurance premium papers and are attached herewith.
To recover old records a case revision, petition No 101/2016 was pending in the court of Hon’ble Finance Commissioner of Delhi, based on this cases D.C.A kept the rebate on interest in Abeyance till finalization of the said case. Now the case is disposed off due to noncompliance, hence old records could not be recovered so far. And also at present no case is pending in any court of law to recover old records. In this regard a letter from society management is attached herewith.”
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2023, content of the same is reproduced as under:
“The file in to matter mentioned in RTI filed by the applicant has been already submitted in Distt West-B from this school.”
The respondents submitted that the concerned file is with the Directorate of Education where the matter is pending.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The respondents who appeared before the Commission submitted that the concerned file in which the appellant’s matter was dealt with has been submitted to the Directorate of Education for necessary action.
It is noted that the hearing notice was sent to the PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), Old Secretariat, New Delhi, but no one was present from the Head Quarter. It appears that the hearing notice was transferred to the PIO, Zone-18, to appear and defend the case. However, PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), Old Secretariat, New Delhi is the custodian of the information sought by the appellant.
As per the submissions of the appellant present status of his representation dated 17.08.2023 was not intimated till the date of hearing. The custodian of information i.e. PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), did not appear before the Commission despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and notices were issued to them. Thus, prima facie it appears that the information sought was deliberately withhold by the PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), New Delhi.
In view of the above, Shri Rajesh Joshi (DDE), HQ, /present PIO and Shri Devender Mohan, PIO (Zone-18), District West -B, New Delhi are show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant and also why compensation equal to the amount involved in the case should be awarded to the appellant. Shri Amit Kumar, APIO/Vice Principal who appeared before the Commission is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the above-named concerned officials. Both the PIOs are required to submit their written explanations and also appear on the next date of hearing. All the written explanations (from both the PIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, the PIOs concerned is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the updated revised information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Yatendra Pal v. Directorate of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2023/650684; Date of Decision: 20.02.2025