S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) ISSUE Rule. With consent of Counsel for the parties, the matter was heard for disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be driven to initiate these proceedings under article 226; he has sought for a direction to the respondents, namely, the MCD slum and JJ Department, the Deputy Commissioner, Shahadra Zone of the MCD and the DDA to furnish information in respect of structures which were alleged to be unauthorised constructions on the public lands. The other relief claimed is for a direction to demolish the structure in question. Before approaching the Court, the petitioner had filed an application to the competent authority designated in terms of the Delhi Right to Information Act, of the MCD Slum and JJ Department eliciting information as to whether the lands were allotted either by the DDA or the mcd; the unauthorised encroachment supposed to have been regularised and unauthorised encroachment requiring to be demolished. The competent officer of the MCD Slum and JJ Department, replied to the query in the following terms: "ref: ID No. 155/05 sh. Ram Avtar Singh Yadav: The plot in question measuring 16m x 43m (688 S. qm. plot) had been allotted for Dairy purpose in 1975 by DDA. As per present report, the occupant have changed land use and converted some part into residential and commercial unauthorisedly as shown in the copy of the survey plan. The services of Gazipur and Madan Pur Khadar Dairy farms already stands transferred from DDA to MCD vide Office Order No. 2474 dated 28. 7. 92. Regarding unauthorised encroachment it may be mentioned here that as per order dated 15. 7. 97 the control activities vest with general Wing MCD. " ( 3 ) IN view of the above information that there was unauthorised construction and that the control activities vested with the General Wing MCD, the petitioner applied for the same information from the General Wing, MCD by an application dated 27. 6. 2005. The competent officer of the Shahadra, South Zone of the General wing, responded to the query on 25. 7. 2005 as follows: "sir, please refer to your application. D. No. 99 dated 30. 6. 2005 regarding unauthorized construction adjacent to shop No. B-1 in a DDA flat, gazipur. The information asked is given in the enclosed annexure. e. copy of the note dt. 22. 7. 7. 2005 as follows: "sir, please refer to your application. D. No. 99 dated 30. 6. 2005 regarding unauthorized construction adjacent to shop No. B-1 in a DDA flat, gazipur. The information asked is given in the enclosed annexure. e. copy of the note dt. 22. 7. 2005 duly forwarded by E. E. (XI)/shah. (S) to the deptt. the question pertains. The survey of the area has been carried out by our officials. The area in question falls in the jurisdiction of the DDA. The applicant may kindly be advised to contact accordingly. By order e. E. " ( 4 ) IN view of the stand of the MCD, the petitioner approached the DDA which by its letter dated 5. 12. 2005 declined any involvement in the matter in the following terms: "sir, this has the reference to your O. O. No. RTIA/05/rn12296 dated 8. 11. 2005 on the subject cited above. In this regard, I am directed to inform that above mentioned site has been inspected by the Executive engineer/ed-10 and reported that Shop No. B-1, Gazipur Dairy Farm was allotted by J. J. Slum. The area is still being looked after by J. J. Slum wing. It has been confirmed from the allottee of Shop No. B-1, Gazipur dairy Farm that maintenance of Roads and drains are being done by mcd. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner purporting to be aggrieved filed an appeal under Section 7 of the Delhi Right to Information Act to the Public Grievances Commission. That appeal, preferred in a composite manner, was declined on the ground that a single appeal was not maintainable and that the appeals had to be preferred within 30 days of the issuance of the impugned orders and were therefore time-barred. ( 6 ) THE MCD filed a status report in these proceedings on 14th July, 2006 in answer to the show cause notice, indicating that the encroachment of the four unauthorised shops in the area, namely, near Plot No. B-1, Shopping Complex, gazipur Dairy Farm were demolished by action dated 26. 6. 2006. It is evident from the status report that the unauthorised shops were located on the pavement adjacent to the plot No. B-1. The photographs filed along with the status report/affidavit would also show that the structures were regular builtup shops and bulldozers were used to bring them down. 6. 2006. It is evident from the status report that the unauthorised shops were located on the pavement adjacent to the plot No. B-1. The photographs filed along with the status report/affidavit would also show that the structures were regular builtup shops and bulldozers were used to bring them down. All these corroborate the complaint or grievance of the petitioner that the constructions were unauthorized, and encroachments. ( 7 ) MR. O. P. Saxena, learned Counsel submitted that officials of the General wing and Slum Wing did not intentionally withhold relevant information, or give wrong information. He submitted that the mistake was bonafide, as there was some lack of co-ordination between two branches of the MCD. ( 8 ) THE above narrative reveals that the response of the MCD to the queries of the applicant petitioner were exercises in deception inasmuch as both the authorities, mcd Slum and JJ Department and the General Wing tried to evade giving clear and truthful answers. In effect they disclaimed the responsibility of the MCD altogether. An attempt was made to drive the petitioner to the DDA. To put it mildly, the stand was nothing short of concealment of true facts contrary to the spirit and object of the Delhi Right to Information Act. Had the correct answers been provided, the petitioner might well have not approached the Court. Instead, every effort was made to block the petitioner's legitimate right to information. Even the appellate authority, in my opinion, seems to have taken a rather mechanical and hyper-technical view. Considering that the petitioner was being turned from one agency to another and inter-departmentally, the appellate authority in such cases was expected to be more sensitive and not raise barriers to the right to information of a citizen. Both public agencies (the departments of MCD) delayed performing their duties, in providing information. Under these circumstances, in stead of rejecting the appeals on the ground that they were not maintainable because they were composite appeals, and on delay they ought to have been entertained and considered on the merits. ( 9 ) LONG ago, in 1948, the U. N. General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the declaration recognised that everyone has the right to receive and impart information and ideas. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of expression. ( 9 ) LONG ago, in 1948, the U. N. General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the declaration recognised that everyone has the right to receive and impart information and ideas. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of expression. That provision was held to extend to the right to information by the Supreme Court in Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 60; S. P. Gupta v. Union of india, AIR 1982 SC 149 and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, i (2004) SLT 515= 2004 (2) SCC 476 . The objective of the Delhi Right to information Act, 2001 was to inject transparency, and ensure speed in the decision making process. It is part of a dynamic and progressive effort aimed at minimizing delay in official functioning, emerging quick decisions of public authorities and curbing abuse of discretion. It also contains provisions - viz. Section 9 to bring in accountability; officials who delay granting information, or worse, can be penalized. ( 10 ) I am unmoved by the submission of the MCD that there was no intention to give wrong information. A public official is expected to display diligence, and apply his mind in the normal discharge of his functions. The Act demands that, no more, no less. The right to obtain information cannot be defeated by delay, evasion, or creation of barriers which inhibit access. Lack of personal ill will or bad motive is no answer to carelessness and complete non-application of mind, while furnishing information to an applicant. This petition has, in my opinion, exemplified how a progressive enactment can be thwarted and its objective subverted, by a sheer mechanical approach by, or due to complete disinclination by the public agency to reveal the true facts. ( 11 ) AS far as the merits of the present case are concerned consequent to the petitioner's preferring these proceedings, the MCD woke up, and admitted to its responsibility by taking action. In these circumstances, the most appropriate order in these proceedings would be to direct the MCD to bear the costs which are assessed at Rs. 30,000/ -. The MCD is further directed to fix departmental responsibility in tune with Section 9 (2) of the Delhi Right to Information Act and take further action. In these circumstances, the most appropriate order in these proceedings would be to direct the MCD to bear the costs which are assessed at Rs. 30,000/ -. The MCD is further directed to fix departmental responsibility in tune with Section 9 (2) of the Delhi Right to Information Act and take further action. In such an event, the MCD shall also ensure that costs hereby directed are recovered from the erring officials. The costs shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Writ Petition disposed of.