CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001786/8853Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001786
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Shri. Inder Singh Uppal
(Through advocate S.C. Jain),
House No. 5/266,
Near P.S. Farash Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
GNCTD, Land and Building Department,
Land Management Branch,
Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2009
PIO replied : 18/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 28/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 03/12/2009
Second Appeal received on : 04/06/2010
S. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. What is the number of the file which is This office has tried its best to trace the information as
still not traceable? sought by you. But till date the information is not readily
traceable. The reply in this connection has already been
communicated to you vide this office letter dated 22/10/2008
and 27/07/2009 vide ID No. 1938/08 and 2564/09, which
may kindly be seen.
2. Whether any notification in respect of As per record available, the relevant file is reported missing.
excess vacant land in 12, K.G. Marg, New The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 05/05
Delhi under Section 10 of ULCR Act was 2005 in the matter of CWP No. 7912-15 of 2003 directed the
ever issued and published in the official crime branch of the Delhi Police to investigate the matter.
gazette of the Delhi government. The relevant file has still not been traced out. Hence, nothing
can be said in the matter.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The reply of the PIO is not found to be satisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Fresh reply must be given to the Appellant by the PIO.
Page 1 of 4
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Further to the order of the FAA, the PIO provided the information sought by the Appellant on 03/03/2010,
which was found to be unsatisfactory by the Appellant. A second appeal was filed which was returned on
the grounds of being time barred vide Commission’s letter bearing Diary No. 63500 dated 15/06/2010.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed an application before the Commission on 28/06/2010 for an opportunity of
hearing.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 06 August 2010:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
“The PIO states that the file which is required to be referred to for providing the notification under
Section -10 of UNCR Act -1976 has not been found since many years. An affidavit to this effect has been
filed in High Court in 2003 in WP no. 7912/2003. The PIO claims that an inquiry has been setup in 2005
to trace out the file which had still not come to any conclusion. The Commission observes how public
money can be wasted in an elaborate game of pretence where for five years it is claimed that a committee
is inquiring into a missing file. The Commission directs the Dy. Commissioner (Central New Delhi Zone)
to file a police complaint for the theft/loss of the said file and send a copy of this police complaint to the
appellant and the Commission before 10/09/2010. If however the file is found the information should be
supplied before this date to the appellant.”
Commission’s Decision dated 06 August 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO will provide the information before 10 September 2010 failing which Dy. Commissioner
(Central New Delhi) will file a police complaint and send a copy of it to the Appellant and the
Commission before 10/09/2010.”
Facts leading to showcause hearing on 21 January 2011:
The Commission received a letter dated 28/09/2010 from the Appellant alleging that the order of the
Commission had not been complied with. On perusal of the papers, the Commission observed that the PIO
had not provided the requisite information to the Appellant as the relevant file w still missing. Therefore,
in accordance with the Commission’s order dated 06/08/2010, the Deputy Commissioner (Central- New
Delhi) was required to file a police complaint and provide a copy of the same to the Appellant. In view of
the same, by notice dated 22/10/2010 the Deputy Commissioner (Central- New Delhi) was directed to file
a police complaint and provide a copy of the same to the Appellant and the Commission before
30/11/2010 failing which penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act would be initiated.
The Commission has received a letter on 14/12/2010 wherein the Appellant has alleged that no
information has been received from the Deputy Commissioner (Central- New Delhi) till date. From the
facts before the Commission, it appeared that the Deputy Commissioner (Central- New Delhi) has failed
to comply with the order of the Commission and not provided the complete information within the time
limit specified therein. The delay on part of the Deputy Commissioner (Central- New Delhi) in providing
the information amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission’s order and also raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.
The Deputy Commissioner (Central- New Delhi) was again directed to file a police provide a copy of the
same to the Appellant and the Commission before January l5, 2011 and further he was asked to appear
before the Commission on 21 January 2011 at 04.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1)
should not be levied on him for defying the order of the Commission.
Page 2 of 4
Submission received from Deputy Commissioner (Central):
“Kindly refer to your letter dated 22/12/2010 on the subject cited above. In this connection it is stated that
as per record this case does not pertain to District Central. It is, therefore requested that, Deputy
Commissioner (Central) may kindly be exempted for appearance before the Commission On 21/01/2011
at 4:00 pm. However, in case there is any involvement of District Central, the same may kindly be
intimated so that appropriate action is taken at this end.”
(A copy of this has been forwarded to the Dy. Commissioner (New Delhi).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 21 January 2011:
The following were present
Respondent: Mr. A. V. Premnath, ADM(New Delhi); Mr. B. K. Jha, SDM(HQ); Mr. M. K. Naunihal,
Tehsildar (HQ);
ADM New Delhi has appeared before the Commission to assist the Commission alongwith
SDM(HQ) and Tehsildar (HQ).
The ADM(New Delhi) states that the matter relates to 1998 and the fact that this file has been missing is
being inquired into by Anti Corruption Branch of the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD as also by the
EOW of Crime Branch of Delhi Police. The ADM(New Delhi) also states that all the records relating to
this matter are with the investigation agencies i.e. Anti Corruption Branch and EOW. By his letter of
21/01/2011 the ADM(New Delhi) has informed the Directorate of Vigilance as well as the EOW.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs the PIO Directorate of Vigilance and PIO EOW to send the
information sought by the Appellant in the accompanying RTI application to the Appellant
and the Commission before 20 February 2011 if the records are available with them. In
case the relevant records are not available with them the will state this and also indicate the
stage at which the inquiry is.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
CC;
1- PIO,
Directorate of Vigilance,
4th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2- PIO,
Economic Offences Wing,
Crime Branch, C-22/23,
Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area,
Page 3 of 4
New Delhi
Page 4 of 4
