CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Near Post Office
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000589/3293Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000589
Show Cause Hearing:
Appellant : Mr. Sham Lal
House No. 80/21, Gali No. 5,
Raj Nagar, Khandsa Road,
Gurgaon-122001.
Respondent : Mr. Vivek Raman
Public Information Officer
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016.
Background
:
The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 25/11/2008 had sought information regarding
issuing of certificate required to erect Mobile Tower on roof top on residential building after
01/01/2007. He wanted to know the names, address of building/building owners, date of
issuing of certificate with certificate no., date of inspection, number of person required to
inspect for testing the structural stability, TA paid for inspection and details of vehicle used
for the said purpose.
PIO vide his letter dated 19/12/2008 sent a reply to the Appellant with which Appellant found
unsatisfactory.
The FAA vide its order dated 16/02/2009 stated that “Having gone through the details, I
would like to comment as following:-
1) The reply given by PIO is exclusive and complete. The relief sought for is your
interpretation. In this regard, may please note that certificate is given to the client only
citing specific reference of building.
2) It may be noted that the assignment has been undertaken as consultancy. As per
agreed terms and conditions of consultancy assignment, consultancy report and
related documentation is confidential matter and cannot be disclosed to third party.
3) The drawings submitted by our client were returned to the client after the assignment
was completed. We do not maintain record of such documents, hence unable to
provide you a copy of the drawings.”
Second appeal was received by the Hon’ble CIC on 26/03/2009 on which decision was
pronounced on 18/05/2009.
The Facts arose in the hearing:
Both the parties were present during the hearing. The Appellant stated that he wanted the
information for House no. 74/1/21 or 73/21, Gali no. 5, Raj Nagar, Gurgaon in the name Shri
Vinod Kumar. The Respondent had asked the third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act and
the third party had refused, hence the PIO did not provide the information. Also the PIO
stated that the copies of the plans of the building and other documents supplied by the third
party are not retained by them, hence they could not supply these since they do not have the
records.
When asked on what grounds copies of the certificate were being refused to the Appellant,
the PIO stated that since the third party objected and stated that the information was
confidential, he did not give it. The PIO was unable to give any of the exemption clauses of
Section 8 (1). The Commission found that since the certificate was issued by the Public
authority and none of the exemption clauses apply to it.
Commission’s Order:
The appeal was allowed and the Commission thereby directed the PIO to provide the
certified copy of the stability certificate to the Appellant before 30/05/2009.
The Brief Facts Leading to Show Cause Hearing:
The Commission received a letter dated 08/06/2009 from the Appellant wherein he alleged
that till date incomplete information had been provided to him. It appeared to the
Commission that the Respondent had not provided the information to the Appellant within
time limit specified in the order. The inordinate delay on the part of the Respondent
amounted to the willful disobedience of the Commission’s order and also raised a reasonable
doubt that the denial of the information might have been malafide. The Commission thereby
directed the Respondent to provide complete information to the Appellant before 30/06/2009
along with a proof of having done so to the Commission. The Respondent was asked to
present himself before the Commission along with the written submission to show cause as to
why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The Commission received a copy of letter dated 26/06/2009 from the Respondent providing
information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts During the Show Cause Hearing on 23/07/2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Vivek Raman, PIO
The PIO states that he has given the information pursuant to the order of the
Commission on 27 May 2009. The copies were certified but by oversight the date was no
mentioned. The Appellant had pointed out there are two certificates issued for the same
address. The PIO has stated that the faculty members in IIT issues a stability certificate based
on the drawings provided by the client in which the address is mentioned. The PIO also
states that no records are maintained by the IIT of the drawings. The Commission has taken a
look at the stability certificate provided by IIT which states, “This building is safe and
capable of resisting the forces and moments which may be increased or altered by reason of
the additional structures for 15 meter three legged tower with GSM and MW antenna. Pre
fabricated shelter and 25 K.V.A.D.G. set installed on the roof top of the building submitted
by M/s V.A.S. Design and Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd. This does not certify the safety
of building in the case of natural calamity.”
The wording of this certificate appears to indicate that it is certifying the stability as
existing whereas the PIO described that it is a certificate based on a drawing with an address
which is not verified at all. Given the fact that the IIT does not maintain any copy of the
drawing with itself this process appears to have great potential for misuse. Statutory bodies
which permit these towers and IITs would do well to take a look at these practices which
may have the potential of endangering safety. Alternately people may discover that there is
no need for such certification in which case it would be done away with.
The PIO has provided the information but this exercise appears to have revealed some
fundamental flaws. The Commission directs the Director IIT Delhi to take a look at these
practices and correct them if required. The report of this will be sent to the Commission
before 15 August 2009. The penalty proceeding is dropped.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
July 23, 2009