CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

FileNo.CIC/DS/A/2013/001788SA
(Sh.OmPrakashVs.Land&BuildingDept,GNCTD)
Appellant

ShriOmPrakash

Respondent

Land&BuildingDep
GNCTD,Delhi

Dateofhearing

21082014

Dateofdecision

29082014

InformationCommissioner :

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu
(MadabhushiSridhar)

ReferredSections

Sections3,19(3)oftheRTI

Act
Result

Appealallowed/
Disposedof

Observation:CaseofMissingFile

Summary:
Unless provedthatrecordwas destroyedas per the prescribed rules of
destruction/retentionpolicy,itisdeemedthatrecordcontinuestobeheld
bypublicauthority.Claimoffilemissingornottraceablehasnolegalityas
it is not recognized as exception by RTI Act. By practice missing file
cannotbereadintoasexceptioninadditiontoexceptionsprescribedby
RTIAct.ItamountstobreachofPublicRecordsAct,1993andpunishable
withimprisonmentuptoatermoffiveyearsorwithfineorboth.Public
1

Authorityhasadutytoinitiateactionforthiskindoflossofpublicrecord,
intheformofnottraceableormissing.ThePublicAuthorityalsohasa
dutytodesignateanofficerasRecordsOfficerandprotecttherecords.A
thoroughsearchforthefile,inquirytofindoutpublicservantresponsible,
disciplinaryactionandactionunderPublicRecordsAct,reconstructionof
alternativefile,relieftothepersonaffectedbythelossoffilearethebasic
actionsthePublicAuthorityislegitimatelyexpectedtoperform.

Theappellantispresent.ThePublicAuthorityisrepresentedbyMr.PrakashChand
Meena,HeadClerk,LandandBuildingDepoartment,GNCTD,Delhi.

FACTS

2.TheappellantsubmittedthatthroughhisRTIapplicationdated472012,heisseeking
informationregardingallotmentofalternativeplotwithreferencetotherespondentauthority
fileNo.F31(12)/2/2002/7075inlieuofthelandacquiredbytheGovernment. ThePIOhas
givenreplybyhisletterdated13122012.TheappellantmadefirstappealbeforetheFAA.
Claimingthatnoinformationwasreceivedfromtherespondentauthority,theappellanthas
filed2ndappealbeforetheCommission.

Decision:

3.Heardthesubmissionsmadebyboththeparties.Therespondentofficersaysthatthe
relevantfileismissingandhecouldnottraceiteventhoughhepersonallyinspectedthe
recordroomoftheLands&BuildingDepartment,afterreceivingtheRTIapplicationandalso
saysthatthereisnopossibilityofretrievingthemissingrecord.

4.TheCommissionisoftheviewthat,primafacie,PublicAuthoritycannotdenytheright
oftheappellanttogetanalternativeplot,byputtingforwardanexcuseofmissingthefile.
ThedefenseofmissingfilecannotbeacceptedevenundertheRTIAct.Ifthefileisreallynot
traceable,itreflectstheinefficientandpatheticmanagementoffilesbythePublicAuthority.If
thefilecouldnotbetracedinspiteofbestefforts,itisthedutyoftherespondentauthorityto
reconstructthefileordevelopamechanismtoaddresstheissueraisedbytheappellant.

5. TheCommissionfeelsthatlodgingofFIRisnottheremedyinsuchcases,asone
cannotexpectthePolicetocometotheofficeandtracethefile. Accordingtolaw,Police
doesnothaveanyresponsibilitytotracethemissingfiles,astheywillcomeintopictureonly
whenthereistheftofthefiles.Itcannotbesaidthatpoliceshouldcometoofficeandsearch
forthefilesorthingsmisplacedbynegligenceordeliberateactionorbymistakeetc.Itisthe
duty of the PIO to make necessary efforts to trace the file and inform the same to the
appellantintheformofanaffidavit.

Dutyofthepublicauthority

6. ThepublicauthorityhasadutytodesignatePublicRecordsOfficerasper Public
Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and
preservationofpublicrecordsoftheCentralGovernment,UnionTerritoryAdministrations,
publicsectorundertakings,statutorybodiesandcorporations,commissionsandcommittees
constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters
connectedtherewithorincidentalthereto.

7.ThedefinitionofPublicRecordsU/S2(e)ofPublicRecordsAct,1993(PRA1993)is
almostidenticalwiththedefinitionofRecordsundertheRTIAct2005.TheseRecordscan
besoughtundertheRTIAct,2005asInformationthroughRTIApplication.

S5(1) Everyrecordscreatingagencyshallnominateoneofitsofficersas recordsofficer to

dischargethefunctionsunderthisAct.
Sec6(1)Therecordsofficershallberesponsiblefor

properarrangement,maintenanceandpreservationofpublicrecordsunderhischarge;

destruction of public records in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be
prescribedundersubsection(1)ofsection8;

compilationofascheduleofretentionforpublicrecordsinconsultationwiththeNationalArchives
ofIndiaor,asthecasemaybe,theArchivesoftheUnionTerritory;

periodical review for downgrading of classified public records in such manner as may be
prescribed;

adoptionofsuchstandards,proceduresandtechniquesasmayberecommendedfromtimeto
time by the National Archives of India for improvement of record management system and
maintenanceofsecurityofpublicrecords;

compilationofannualindicesofpublicrecords;

submissionofannualreporttotheDirectorGeneralor,asthecasemaybeheadoftheArchives
insuchmannerasmaybeprescribed;

transferringofrecordsofanydefunctbodytotheNationalArchivesofIndiaortheArchivesofthe
UnionTerritory,asthecasemaybe,forpreservation.

periodicalreviewofallpublicrecordsandweedingoutpublicrecordsofeuphomeralvalue;
appraisalofpublicrecordswhicharemorethantwentyfiveyearsoldinconsultationwiththe
NationalArchivesofIndiaor,asthecasemaybe,theArchivesoftheUnionterritorywithaview
toretainingpublicrecordsofpermanentvalue;

compilationoforganizationalhistoryandannualsupplementthereto;
assistingtheNationalArchivesofIndiaor,asthecasemaybe,theArchivesoftheUnionterritory
forpublicrecordsmanagement;

Sec7(1)Therecordsofficershall,intheeventofanyunauthorizedremoval,destruction,defacement
oralterationofanypublicrecordsunderhischarge,forthwithtakeappropriateactionfortherecovery
orrestorationofsuchpublicrecords.
S9.Whoevercontravenesanyoftheprovisionsofsection4orsection8shallbepunishablewith
imprisonmentforatermwhichmayextendtofiveyearsorwithfinewhichmayextendtoten
thousandrupeesorwithboth.
Thepublicrecordsactandrulesbangovernmentdepartmentsfromdestroyingdocumentsthatare
morethan25yearsold,unlesstheyhavebeenappraised.

8.TheNationalArchivesofIndia,undertheCultureMinistry,andsimilarbodiesatthe
State level are required to keep tabs on public records, and help government
departmentsseparateworthlessfilesfromthosethatmustbesaved.

9.Thedocumentsconsideredtobeofpermanentnaturebutnolongerrequiredby
thedepartmentwhichcreatedthemarethenshiftedtothearchivesforsafekeeping.
There,theycanbeseenbyresearchscholars.

10. Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if
considered asevidencein acase,its missingshouldinvite criminal complaint against
officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly
proportionaltoseriousnessofoffencechargedfrom7yearsto10yearsandforlife).

11.Ifthesefilesarepartofpublicrecordandformsevidenceinanycase,itsdestruction
wouldbeaseriouscrimeofdestructionofevidence.Otherwisealsoitbringsintheliability
underPublicRecordsAct1993whichcanextendtoimprisonmentuptofiveyearsandup
tofineofRs10,000. ReadingRighttoInformationAct,2005withPublicRecordsAct,
1993andIndianPenalCode,willleadtoseriousconsequencesforthosewholosethe
records,besidesthedisciplinaryactionfromthetopadministration.
12. Honble Delhi High Court in Union Of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar
[2013(297)ELT500(Del.)] withregardtothepleaoftheRespondentauthorityofrecord
beingnottraceable,hasobservedasfollows:

5.TheRighttoInformationActisaprogressivelegislationaimedatproviding,to
thecitizens,accesstotheinformationwhichbeforethesaidActcameintoforce
couldnotbeclaimedasamatterofright.TheintentbehindenactmentoftheAct
istodisclosetheinformationtothemaximumextentpossiblesubjectofcourseto

certain safeguards and exemptions. Therefore, while interpreting the

provisionsoftheAct,theCourtneedstotakeaviewwhichwouldadvance
theobjectivesbehindenactmentoftheAct,insteadoftakingarestrictive
andhypertechnicalapproachwhichwouldobstructtheflowofinformation
tothecitizens.
6.Thiscanhardlybedisputedthatifcertaininformationisavailablewithapublic
authority,thatinformationmustnecessarilybesharedwiththeapplicantunder
theActunlesssuchinformationisexemptedfromdisclosureunderoneormore
provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to
evadedisclosureoftheinformationtakingthestandardpleathattheinformation
soughtbytheapplicantisnotavailable. Ordinarily,theinformationwhichat
some point of time or the other was available in the records of the
government, should continue to be available with the concerned
department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules
framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore,
whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a
thoroughattemptneedstobemadetosearchandlocatetheinformation
whereveritmaybeavailable.Itisonlyinacasewheredespiteathorough
searchandinquirymadebytheresponsibleofficer,itisconcludedthatthe
information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never
availablewiththegovernmentorhasbeendestroyedinaccordancewith
therulesoftheconcerneddepartmentthattheCPIO/PIOwouldbejustified
inexpressinghisinabilitytoprovidethedesiredinformation. Eveninthe
casewhereitisfoundthatthedesiredinformationthoughavailableinthe
recordofthegovernmentatsomepointoftime,cannotbetraceddespite
best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must
necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take
appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible
forlossoftherecord. Unlesssuchacourseofactionisadopted,itwouldbe
possibleforanydepartment/office,todenytheinformationwhichotherwiseisnot
exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it
inconvenienttobringsuchinformationintopublicdomain,andthatinturn,would
necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to
InformationAct.
7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information
provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the
jurisdictiontodirectaninquiryintothematterwhereveritisclaimedbythe
PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not
traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the
PIO/CPIOtakesapleathattheinformationsoughtbytheapplicantwasnever
availablewiththegovernmentbut,theCommissiononthebasisofthematerial

availabletoitformsaprimafacieopinionthatthesaidinformationwasinfact
availablewiththegovernment,itwouldbejustifiedindirectinganinquirybya
responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the
matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually
availableintherecordsofthegovernmentatsomepointoftimeornot.Afterall,it
isquitepossiblethattherequiredinformationmaybelocatedifathoroughsearch
ismadeinwhichevent,itcouldbepossibletosupplyittotheapplicant.Fearof
disciplinaryaction,againstthepersonresponsibleforlossoftheinformation,will
alsoworkasadeterrenceagainstthewillfulsuppressionoftheinformation,by
vestedinterests.ItwouldalsobeopentotheCommission,tomakeaninquiry
itselfinsteadofdirectinganinquirybythedepartment/officeconcerned.Whether
inaparticularcase,aninquiryoughttobemadebytheCommissionorbythe
officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the
Commissioninthefactsandcircumstancesofeachsuchcase.

13.

Basedontheabovediscussion,theCommissionthusholds:Unlessprovedthat

recordwasdestroyedaspertheprescribedrulesofdestruction/retentionpolicy,itisdeemed
thatrecordcontinuestobeheldbypublicauthority.Claimoffilemissingornottraceablehas
nolegalilityasitwasnotrecognizedasexceptionbyRTIAct. Bypracticemissingfile
cannotbereadintoasexceptioninadditiontoexceptionsprescribedbyRTIAct.Itamounts
tobreachofPublicRecordsAct,1993andpunishablewithimprisonmentuptoatermoffive
yearsorwithfineorboth.PublicAuthorityhasadutytoinitiateactionforthiskindoflossof
publicrecord,intheformofnottraceableormissing.ThePublicAuthorityalsohasaduty
todesignateanofficerasRecordsOfficerandprotecttherecords.Athoroughsearchforthe
file,inquirytofindoutpublicservantresponsible,disciplinaryactionandactionunderPublic
RecordsAct,reconstructionofalternativefile,relieftothepersonaffectedbythelossoffile
arethebasicactionsthePublicAuthorityislegitimatelyexpectedtoperform.

14.

TheCommission,therefore,deemsPublicAuthorityascontinuouslyholdingthe

information,untilandunlesstheyprovethattheinformationwasdestroyedinaccordancewith
theexistingrulesprovidedforthesame.Anyclaimofdefensethatthefileismissingwithout

anyeffortstotracethesame,wouldamounttodenialofinformationwhichcanbedealtwith
asperSection20ofRighttoInformationAct,2005.

15.

ItisthedutyofthePublicAuthoritytofindoutthealternative,ifthefilecouldnotbe

tracedevenafterthoroughsearchandtoprovidenecessaryrelieftotheappellantwhois
seekinginformationabouthisrighttogetalternativeplot,inlieuofthelandacquiredbythe
Governmentduring198687,ShapurVillage,KapasheraRevenueDistrict,Delhi.

16. TheCommissionthereforedirectsthePIOtofileanaffidavitwiththeCommission,
regardingthetimeanddateofeffortsmadetotracethefiles,factoffixingresponsibilityfor
themissingfile,andwhatreliefisproposedtobegiventotheappellantetc.within15days
fromthedateofreceiptofthisorder,byendorsingacopytotheappellant.TheCommission
alsodirectsthePIOconcernedto showcause whymaximumpenaltycannotbeimposed
againsthimfornotrespondingproperlytotheRTIapplicationwithinthetimeperiod. His
explanationshouldreachtheCommissionwithin3weeksfromthedateofreceiptofthis
letter.

17.TheCommissionalsorecommendstothePublicAuthoritytoconsiderthisissueseriously,
asthisCommissionhasbeenhearingexcuseofmissingfilesonmanyoccasionsandalsoto
initiate action under Public Records Act 1993 against responsible persons. The Public
Authority should see that the main purpose of RTI Act to facilitate the appellant to get
information,isnotdefeatedbythiskindofexcuses.

18.TheCommissionordersaccordingly.

(M.SridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner

Authenticatedtruecopy

(BabuLal)
DeputyRegistrar
Addressoftheparties:

1. TheCPIOunderRTI,Govt.OfNCTofDelhi,
LandsandBuildingDepartment(AlternativeBranch),
VikasBhawan,IPEstate,NEWDELHI110002

2. ShriOmPrakash
H.No.133,Sector04,
Gurgaon,HARYANA

3. TheAdditionalSecretary(Lands&Buildings)andFirst
AppellateAuthorityunderRTI,LandsandBuildingDepartment
BBlock,VikasBhawan,
IPEstate,NewDelhi110002