CIC Imposes Rs. 10,000 Penalty on Former DDA CPIO for Not Replying to RTI; Recommends Disciplinary Action for 'Mala Fide' Conduct - 2025-07-22

CIC Slams DDA for "Stonewalling" RTIs, Penalises Former CPIO and Issues Show-Cause to Current Officer

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has taken a stern stance against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for its "casual conduct" and "stonewalling" of RTI applications, imposing a penalty of ₹10,000 on a former Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and recommending disciplinary action against him. In a strongly-worded order, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari also issued a show-cause notice to the current CPIO for providing an "evasive, misleading and incomplete" reply.

The Commission's decision came while hearing an appeal filed by Ashwani Kumar, who sought decades-old information related to the resettlement of Manglapuri village and land acquisition in Amberhai.

---

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ashwani Kumar, filed an RTI application on November 17, 2023, seeking detailed information on eight points concerning the resettlement of Manglapuri village in 1977. The queries pertained to the use of funds amounting to ₹19.89 lakh provided by the Airport Authority of India (AAI), total land allocated, survey reports, criteria for plot allotment, and the status of plot files. He also sought information regarding land acquisition in Amberhai village.

After receiving no response within the stipulated 30-day period, Mr. Kumar filed a first appeal. The CPIO finally provided a reply on February 23, 2024, largely claiming that the requested records were "not available" and denying information on one point under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as "third-party" information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) summarily disposed of the appeal, stating the reply had already been given. Dissatisfied, Mr. Kumar approached the CIC.

---

Arguments Before the Commission

The appellant argued that the CPIO's response was delayed, incomplete, and contradictory. He pointed out the inconsistency in claiming that records were unavailable for some points while simultaneously invoking an exemption clause for another, which implied that the CPIO had accessed the records but "malafidely withheld the information."

The current DDA CPIO, Shri Chirag Gupta, stated that the initial non-response was from his predecessor, Shri Tanuj Rajput. He expressed his inability to provide the information, claiming it was unavailable, and pleaded ignorance of the RTI Act's provisions for transferring applications to the correct department (Section 6(3)).

---

Commission's Findings and Rebuke

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari came down heavily on the DDA's handling of the matter. The Commission noted a pattern in multiple cases involving the DDA where replies are not given in the first instance, and efforts are made only after a hearing notice is issued by the CIC, thereby defeating the purpose of the RTI Act.

"There appears to be no proactive steps to allay the common perception of stonewalling RTI applications by the Respondent Public Authority," the Commission observed.

On the Former CPIO, Shri Tanuj Rajput:

The CIC established that Shri Rajput's failure to provide any reply within the stipulated time was a grave violation of the RTI Act. The order stated:

"It is beyond reasonable doubt that the erring official has evaded his responsibility while holding the charge of CPIO which is not in the spirit of RTI Act. Thus, the mala fide on the part of the then CPIO-cum-Assistant Director, Shri Tanuj Rajput, is established."

Finding it a fit case for penalty, the Commission imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on Shri Rajput under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and also recommended the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him under Section 20(2).

On the Current CPIO, Shri Chirag Gupta:

The Commission also found the reply furnished by the present CPIO to be "evasive, misleading and incomplete." It noted that he deliberately omitted his name from the reply, an action viewed as an attempt to "evade responsibility and accountability."

While giving him an opportunity to be heard, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to Shri Gupta, asking why a penalty of ₹10,000 should not be imposed on him for flouting the Act's provisions.

---

Final Decision and Directions

The CIC has disposed of the appeal with the following key directions:

Penalty: A penalty of ₹10,000 is to be recovered from the salary of the former CPIO, Shri Tanuj Rajput.

Disciplinary Action: The FAA is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Shri Rajput.

Show-Cause Notice: The current CPIO, Shri Chirag Gupta, must submit a written explanation within four weeks as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him.

Revised Reply: The present CPIO is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a fresh, comprehensive, and updated reply to the appellant within four weeks, with proper justification for any information denied under exemption clauses.

This order underscores the importance of timely and accurate responses under the RTI Act and signals the Commission's intolerance for bureaucratic apathy and deliberate obstruction of information by public authorities.