CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01321 dated 29.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Ms. Gita Dewan Verma
Respondent - Prime Minister's Office (PMO)
Facts
:
By an application of 8.3.07 Ms. Gita Dewan Verma of Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi applied to the CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office, seeking the following
information:
“Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting referred to and,
in terms of S.4 (1) (c) of RTI Act, the following relevant facts of the
decision announced:
1. the definitions of the terms “stakeholders” and “participation”
2. The procedure by which the Committee “would have
participation of all stakeholders” and how that procedure relates
to the statutory process for Zonal development plan for River
Yamuna Area (including particulars of any amendments
proposed in the provisions of Delhi Development Act 1957 to
allow participation/ co-chairpersonship of Delhi CM).
3. the purposes for which the Committee will commission studies
and whether these will include evaluation/ impact assessment
studies of the studies already commissioned/ tendered and
projects already initiated/ under process including at instance of
CMO and/ or LG office and the proposals contained in City
Development Plan approved by GNCTD on 06/12/06 and the
MPD-2021 notified by the MOUD on 7.2.07.
4. Modifications, if any, as a result of constitution of this Committee
in the TOR of each of the existing/ recent committees, task
forces, expert groups, etc constituted for purposes related to
Yamuna area conservation and/ or development. (Please
specify for each separately).”
To this she received a response from CPIO Shri Kamal Dayani Director,
PMO dated 5.9.’07 as below:
“Enclosed a copy of an OM No. 731/2/1/2007-Cab-III dated 24th
August, 2007 constituting the Yamuna River Development Authority1
under the Chairmanship of Lt. Governor, Delhi which covers all the
queries raised in your application.”
Not satisfied with this response Ms. Verma moved a first appeal before Ms.
Vini Mahajan, Jt. Secretary, PMO on 14.9.07 on the following grounds:
“I submit that OM dated 24.8.07 (2-pages) appears not to cover any
of my specific queries dated 8.8.07 concerning the decision
announced vide official press release dated 6.8.07.
I request that PIO may kindly be requested to give me point-wise
response from the records containing reasons and material basis of
decision dated 6.8.07. In case custody of records has been
transferred pursuant to OM dated 24.8.07, PIO may kindly be
requested to immediately transfer u/s 6 (3).”
Upon this Ms Verma received an order from Shri Javed Usmani, Jt.
Secretary to Prime Minister dated 17/19 Oct, 2007 as below:
“After due consideration of the matter in terms of the relevant
provisions of the Act, it is observed as follows:
(a) You had sought certain information vide your application
dated 8.8.2007 regarding the meeting chaired by the Prime
Minister to discuss issues relating to conservation and
development of the Yamuna River, in which it was decided
to set up a High Powered Committee.
(b) After perusal of records relating to the aforesaid meeting in
the PMO, the CPIO, PMO informed you vide his letter dated
5.9.2007 about the constitution of the Yamuna River
Development Authority/ High Powered Committee under the
Lt. Governor of Delhi, enclosing a copy of the relevant OM
dated 24.8.2007.
(c) The said OM dated 24.8.2007 outlines the terms of
reference of the Committee chaired by Lt. Governor, Delhi
which hare self-explanatory.
(d) No other information relating to the issues raised in your
application dated 8.8.2007 were available in the PMO.
Accordingly, the undersigned is of the view that the Central Public
information Officer of the PMO has followed the prescribed2
statutory provisions and has appropriately dealt with your
application dated 8.8.2007.”
Subsequently Ms. Verma wrote to the other official members of the High
Powered Committee of Yamuna River Development seeking their advice but
received no response. She has then moved her second appeal before us with
the following prayer:
“(a) Direct PIO to give point-wise reply i.e. either give (or
transfer) or refuse the minutes/ record of meeting dated
6.8.07 and for each item requested under S. 4 (1) (c )
either give (or transfer) or say it is not ‘relevant fact’
(b) Direct PIO and FAA to clarify the reference in reply and
first appeal order to an authority and
(c) Decide this appeal expeditiously.”
In response to our appeal notice, we have received a letter from CPIO Shri
Amit Agarwal Director, Prime Minister’s Office dated 15.1.’09 submitting as
follows:
“(i) With regard to mention of the word “Authority”, it is submitted
that the OM mentions the word “Authority” only in the subject
heading. This is in line with usual practice of citing the file
subject heading on communications issued from a file to
facilitate locating of relevant file and this subject heading
does not serve as a description of the contents of the
communication.
(ii) As regards the minutes of the meeting, it is clarified that no
minutes of the meeting were issued and only a PMO UO
note no. 500/31/C/24/07-ES.2 dated 22.8.2007 was issued,
the contents of which hare essentially the same as that of
the OM already supplied to the appellant. A copy of the
aforementioned PMO UO note is enclosed. The PMO UO
note was not furnished earlier as there was no new
information contained in it beyond that contained in the OM
provided and the OM embodied the final outcome.
(iii) No specific record is available in this office with regard to the
specific queries posed in the application.
In light of above, it is submitted that all relevant information has
already been furnished to the appellant. The position submitted
above may serve to remove any doubt regarding the relevance/3
completeness of disclosure of information sought as per available
record. Therefore, the Commission may be pleased to reject the
appeal.”
The appeal was heard on 16.1.09. The following are present:
Appellant
Ms. Gita Dewan Verma
Respondents
Shri Amit Agarwal, Director
Shri Kshitish Kumar, Section Officer.
Ms. Verma confirmed having received a copy of the letter of 15.1.09 from
CPIO, PMO Shri Amit Agarwal. However, she submitted that there appears to be
a contradiction between the press release issued immediately after the meeting
and the UO note issued on 22.8.07 in that whereas the press release refers to
the setting up a High Powered Committee on Yamuna River Development with
Lt. Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi as Co-Chairpersons, the UO note
speaks of “Constitution of Yamuna River Development Authority, but speaks in
the decision taken of “A High Powered Committee for Yamuna River
Development” that will be constituted, chaired by the LG, Delhi with the Chief
Minister of Delhi as Vice-chair.
This has been followed by an OM issued by the Cabinet Secretariat on
24.8.07 actually setting up the Committee, but the setting up of this Committee is
not mentioned on the website either of the PMO or the Cabinet Sectt, which was
mandatory u/s 4(1)(b) sub sec. (viii) and u/sec. 4(c).
Respondent Shri Amit Agarwal admitted that there was a contradiction in
wording between the press release and the UO. These were issued by different
Sections of the Prime Minister’s Office, the first immediately after the meeting
and the second after obtaining formal approvals for issue.
DECISION NOTICE
4
The plea of appellant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma before us is a pointwise reply
to her question which now stands provided in the letter of 15.1.’09, by the
response of PMO to our appeal notice quoted above. However, since her initial
request is related to disclosure /s 4(1) ( c), we find that this specific issue remains
unaddressed. There is no doubt that the constitution of this Committee together
with the reasons for setting it up fall squarely within the mandate of sec. 4(1)(b)
& 4(1)(c). However, the OM establishing the Committee is that of the Cabinet
Secretariat. This OM should indeed, therefore, have been uploaded on the
website of the Cabinet Secretariat. Since this is not a Committee of the PMO,
this was not incumbent upon that public authority i.e. PMO. Its uploading u/s
4(1)(c), however, would be within the province of the Delhi Government since it is
chaired by the Lt. Governor Delhi and the Chief Minister is Vice Chairman and
constitutes, therefore, an important policy which affects the public of Delhi.
Besides the above the admission of a contradiction between the UO note
and the press release discloses the weakness in coordination in release of
information at the level of the PMO. This is, no doubt, a minor lacuna but being
at the level at which it has occurred is unacceptable.
In light of the above, we, therefore, hereby take the following decisions:
1. Cabinet Secretariat is advised to upload its OM of 24.8.2007 on the
constitution of a High Powered Committee for Yamuna River Development
onto its website within ten working days from the date of issue of this
Decision Notice.
2. The Office of Lt. Governor, Delhi is advised to upload on GNCT Delhi’s
website the contents of PMO’s UO dated 22.8.07 giving reasons for the
constituting up of the Committee and mentioning that it constitutes part of
a policy of Delhi Government.
5
3. The Media Advisor, PMO is advised under the authority vested in this
Commission by Sec 25 sub-section (5), to ensure better coordination in
press release, the instrument of sharing information with the public, with
the decision making Sections of the Prime Minister’s Office to ensure
authenticity of release.
With the above observations, this appeal is now disposed of. Announced
in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16.1.2009
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
16.1.2009
6