CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00073+00075/SG/1124
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00073/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rohtash,
B-29, Rajya Sabha Awas,
INA Colony,
New Delhi -110023.
Respondent 1 : Mr. D.P.Rana,
PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
L&B Department,
B-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
New Delhi -110002.
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2008
PIO replied : 02/07/2008
First appeal filed on : 09/07/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 06/08/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 06/08/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application for alternative plots in 1998 in lieu
acquisitions from residents of Lado Sarai Village, reasons of application still
pending for want of formalities to be completed.
Detail of required information:-
S.No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. a) whether applications for alternative plots a) Applications were received
in 1998 in lieu of land acquisitions from as per policy/guidelines.
residents of Lado Sarai Village, Mehrauli,
Delhi-30, were accepted only after all b) Applicants are informed to
formalities were completed. If so, what are submit the requisite
the reasons of their applications still documents as per
pending for formalities to be completed. policy/guidelines form time to
b) If no. what other formalities after receipt time.
of applications were required to be complete
and whether applicants were informed of
the same. If so, what are the compete details
thereof?
2. What formalities/papers are yet to be The report from LAC is still
completed by Shri Manphol who submitted awaited and the same has been
the application on 10/09/98 to the Deptt. informed to the appellant vide
when was he informed of the formalities to our letter dated 26/05/2008.
be competed? A copy each of the
communication(s) and documentary
evidence that was send to him, may be
provided.
3. I may be allowed to inspect/peruse the files The appellant cannot be
of those applicants who had been allowed to inspect the
recommended for alternative plots from recommended file to other
Lado Sarai Village and also the persons.
policy/guidelines for
allotment/recommendation of alternative
plots. I may decide after inspection, the
copy of relevant from these documents, I
may require?
The First Appellate Authority ordered: –
“I have heard the appellant and the PIO and also pursued the copy of the
application under RTI. I find that the PIO has provided information with regard to
Points 1,therefore, a copy of the policy guidelines with regard to allotment of
alternative plots is required to be given to the appellant which will serve the purpose
so far as the information sought.
With regard to information sought at point no. 2, the PIO has intimated that
the case in question for allotment of plot was pending for want of report from LAC.
While providing this information, the term ‘LAC’ should have been properly written
as ‘LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR’ of the concerned district. Further, after
examining the relevant file of Sh. Manphol, he should also have properly mentioned
that either no formality is required to be complied with by Sh. Manphol or all the
documents which were required under the policy guidelines have been received from
Sh. Manphol on the basis of facts available in the records. Therefore, this information
need to be further clarified, as mentioned above.
So far as, the information at point No. 3 is concerned the information sought
by the appellant is not specific as to whose case file he wants to inspect and it can
only be allowed subject to protection of 3rd party interest, if any, as per provisions of
the RTI Act, 2005.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant as per the
above directions, within a period of 15 days form the receipt of these orders.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Kuldeep representing Mr. Rohtash
Respondent: Mr. B.D. Gupta PIO
The respondent claims that he has provided the letter which was sent to the LAC. He
is directed to send it again. In one of the communications sent to the appellant it has
been stated that the formalities in respect of Mr. Manphol were ‘almost’ complete.
The PIO will give a categorical reply whether the formalities are complete or not. As
regards inspection of files the appellant was asked by the First appellate authority to
identify which files he wanted to inspect. Appellant will identify the files and the PIO
will facilitate the inspection.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information stated above to the appellant before
30 January 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16th January, 09.
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick
disposal)