SAURAV DAS  Vs CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (CPIO), NATIONAL E-GOVERNANCE DIVISION (NEGD) & ORS.

W.P.(C) 10873/2020 Page 1 of 4$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19thJanuary, 2021.
+ W.P.(C) 10873/2020
SAURAV DAS ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Mr. N. Sai
Vinod, Ms. Sanjana Srikumar and Ms.
Devdutta Mukhopadhyay, Advocates
(M: 9711680348).
versus
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (CPIO), NATIONAL
E-GOVERNANCE DIVISION (NEGD) &
ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Central
Government Counsel (Senior Panel),
Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advocate with Mr.
Shilohu Rao, GM and CPIO, NEGD,
MEITY, Mr. S.K Tyagi, DD and CPIO
(E-Gov), MEITY and Mr. Swarup
Datta, Scientist (F) and CPIO, NIC, for
R-1 to 5 (M: 9811555971,
9910711125).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The subject matter of this writ petition is the `Aarogya Setu’
Application, which has been launched by the Government post the outbreak of
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner is an RTI activist who had filed RTI
applications with various Government authorities including the National
Informatics Centre ( hereinafter, “NIC” ), the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology ( hereinafter, “MEITY” ), and the National E-
Governance Division ( hereinafter, “NeGD” ), seeking various documents and
information about the ‘ Aarogya Setu’ Application.
2021:DHC:215W.P.(C) 10873/2020 Page 2 of 43. The Petitioner’s grievance is that despite approaching various
authorities, each and every authority continued to evade responding to the
application and failed to provide the information sought for. The Petitioner then
approached the Central Information Commission ( hereinafter, “CIC” ). After,
he approached the CIC, NeGD replied to him stating that it does not possess
any information qua the queries/information sought by the Petitioner, as the
said information does not relate to the NeGD.
4. An interim hearing was then held by the CIC, and vide order dated 26th
October, 2020, the CIC passed a detailed order and observed that none of the
officials have provided the requisite information and that none of the CPIOs
were able to explain anything qua the query as to how the website-
http://aarogyasetu.gov.in/, with the domain name “gov.in”, or the Application,
was created. The CIC in fact observed that the stand of the CPIOs is
“extremely preposterous”. Having observed the same, show-cause notices
were issued by the CIC to four officers from various Departments of the
Government. The said order reads as under:
“In view of the above observations, the Commission is
constrained to issue a show cause notice to the concerned
CPIOs
1. Shri S.K Tyagi, Deputy Director and CPIO,
2. Shri D K Sagar, Deputy Director Electronics
3. Shri R A Dhawan, Senior General Manager
(HR & Admn) and CPIO NeGD
4. Shri Swarup Dutta, Scientist F and CPIO NIC
to explain why penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act should not be
imposed on them for prima facie obstruction of
information and providing an evasive reply. The CPIO,
NIC shall also submit written submissions detailing their
role in creation of the website https://aarogyasetu.gov.in/
with the domain name gov.in. The CPIO, NeGD shall also
explain the delay of about 2 months in replying to the RTI
application.”
2021:DHC:215W.P.(C) 10873/2020 Page 3 of 4The said show-cause notices were, however, discharged vide the impugned
order dated 26thNovember, 2020 wherein the CIC has observed:
“The show cause notice proceedings are dropped and
the complaint too is disposed of accordingly.”
5. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits
that the Petitioner was not awarded a hearing, despite the fact that the Petitioner
had specifically sought for the same in her complaint dated 10thSeptember
2020 filed before the CIC, and the proceedings before the CIC ought to have
been converted into an appeal wherein a hearing is compulsorily required to be
given. She further submits that CIC, in the impugned order, has observed that
the information qua the ‘ Aarogya Setu’ Application is already in the public
domain and that the notices against various officers, which were issued in the
interim decision, also stand discharged. She submits that despite having spent a
considerable amount of time with various authorities, the Petitioner has not
received the requisite information, which are of enormous public relevance,
from any of the authorities concerned.
6. Mr. Rahul Sharma, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 to 5,
submits that substantial amount of information quathe queries of the Petitioner
exist in the public domain, and further, information running into more than 80
pages has already been given as was enclosed with the letter dated 3rd
December 2020 sent by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner. He also submits
that in the hearing before the CIC on 24thNovember 2020, large amount of data
and facts were placed by the Respondents, because of which the said notice
against the four officers has been discharged by the CIC vide the impugned
order.
2021:DHC:215W.P.(C) 10873/2020 Page 4 of 47. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. There are various issues that have
been raised in the present petition in respect of the ` Aarogya Setu ’ Application
which are of considerable public importance. The Petitioner, being an RTI
activist, has been seeking various documents and information qua the said
Application, from various authorities including NIC, MEITY, NEGD and other
Government Departments. However, none of the authorities provided the
complete information sought. The Petitioner has also filed fresh RTI
applications before all the Public Information Officers of the concerned
Departments. The CIC has passed the impugned order dated 26thNovember
2020, without affording a hearing to the Petitioner, which according to the
Respondents is not required to be given. The issues raised in the petition
deserve examination.
8. Issue notice to the Respondents. Mr. Rahul Sharma, ld. counsel accepts
notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 to 5. Before going into the issues raised in
this matter, the Court directs both the counsels for the Petitioner and the
Respondents to place on record a chart, stating the information sought and
already provided as well as the outstanding information which is yet to be
provided to the Petitioner.
9. Along with the said chart, if the counsels for the Respondents wish to
file any further affidavit in respect of the averments made in the writ petition,
the same be filed within three weeks.
10. List for further hearing on 24thFebruary, 2021.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2021
dj/Ak
2021:DHC:215