Vishwas Bhamburkar Vs. PIO, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Central Information Commission)
Commission records admonition against Dr. D K Gupta, present CPIO Mr S K Gupta and First Appellate Authority for illegally insisting on Aadhar Card etc. to prove citizenship, identity and address, and also demanding proof of citizenship. Denial of information for lack of Aadhaar card will be a serious breach of right, which was guaranteed by the RTI Act and also amounts to harassment of the applicant. The Commission requires the public authority to provide enough training in RTI to the CPIO, the First Appellate Authority and other concerned personnel as soon as possible.
1. The complainant apprehends embezzlement of funds of HUDCO and therefore filed RTI application seeking information about the amounts spent from the coffers of HUDCO on gifts for years 2013 to 2016, renovation of official residence of its Chairman and Managing Director in ASIAD village, electricity bills of official residence, whether Mr. Rajkumar and Mr. Harish are employed in capacity of Chairman and Managing Director respectively and remunerations paid to each of them, etc. The CPIO stated through reply dated 05.08.2016 that they could not verify the contents of the complaints made against Sr. Officers and HUDCO Management, despite their best efforts, and also sought documents of the complainant’s identity as the same was pre-requisite under RTI Act.
2. The CPIO Dr. D.K. Gupta wrote a letter on 5.8.2016 demanding the proof of identity and proof of address by producing Aadhar Card, Voter’s ID Card or Passport as proof of citizenship. He did not say anything about giving information sought. No information was given within 30 days. The applicant filed this complaint. He has also filed first appeal, asking for information without insisting on the proofs. But the First Appellate Authority Mr. Akhilesh Kumar confirmed the demand for proof of identity, verification of address and establishing citizenship of the appellant. Then applicant filed second appeal also. The Commission issued hearing notices, in response to which the CPIO was not present. Then Commission compelled to give interim orders as follows:
3. The Commission’s order dated 19.04.2017:
2. The Commission directs the CPIO to facilitate inspection of all the exhibits and files related to: (i) names and beneficiaries for whom amounts were spent from the coffers of HUDCO for gifts for years 2013 to 2016; (ii) renovation of official residence of its Chairman and Managing Director in ASIAD village (iii) Mr. Rajkumar and Mr. Harish employed in capacity of Chairman and Managing Director respectively and remunerations paid to each of them; (iv) appointment of Ms. ShwetaKulshreshtha as Management Trainee in Uttarakhand; (v) Vigilance clearance given to Mr. Ravi Kant. The respondent authority is directed to facilitate inspection on 20.04.2017 at 1130 hours.
3. The Commission directs the CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sough within prescribed time limits, before 20.05.2017.
Analysis:
4. Dr. D.K. Gupta, CPIO (in-charge), HUDCO on 18.05.2017 submitted a detailed written explanation, as follows:
(a) “At the outset, I would like to submit that a few RTI applications were received by the then CPIO, HUDCO during the same period in the nature of motivated allegations, and it was found that in most of the cases, no such RTI applicant either residing at the addresses mentioned therein, or has already left the place given in the RTI applications. Therefore, a need has arisen for the then CPIO to ensure the genuineness of the applicants by seeking the identity proof of the applicants. The then CPI, HUDCO in order to discharge his obligations with utmost care and caution, requested the Applicant, Shri VishwasBhamburkarto confirm his identity, as a Citizen of India, by furnishing any proof. However, he understood differently & reacted harshly unbecoming of a responsible citizen of India.
(b) In this regard, it is important to explain the facts and summarize the background in chronological order, for the proper adjudication, which are as under:
