CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001612/4519Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001612
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Appellant : Mr. Dharambir Singh
House No. 434, Village &
Post - Bankher, Narela,
Delhi - 110040
Respondent : Mr. MP Singh,
Extension Officer, Office of the BDO,
North West Alipur
Delhi 110036
RTI application filed on : 03/02/2009
PIO replied : 28/02/2009
First Appeal filed on : 03/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 03/07/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. The name and designation of the investigating Gram Sevak Sri Rajpal Singh and Sri
officer of the tube well and the attested Mahendra pal Singh , Agriculture
photocopy of the report. Development Officer and the copy of
the report is enclosed.
2. The name of the concerned Area Supervisor As given above.
and the name of the supervisor who has
forwarded the investigation report.
3. The attested photocopy of the affidavit, which Contact NDPL office Narela for NOC
contains signature of all the account-holders and Contact Delhi Municipal
regarding NOC, attested photocopies of all the Corporation for the deceased account
account holders, information regarding whether holders.
the Death Certificates are submitted in original
or in the form of photocopy.
4. Attested Photocopy of the NOC of Tube well Copy of Letter/ NOC dated 10/06/2008
A.P. written to the Manager NDPL Narela is enclosed.
dated 10/06/2008.
5. Attested photocopy of the letter NOC with- Photocopy is enclosed.
drawn dated 08/10/2008 written to the Manager
NDPL.
6. Attested photocopy of the letter dated Copy of letter is enclosed and the
05/12/2008/1513 written to the Manager NDPL circumstances in which the letter was
and the attested photocopy of all the Notings of written were given in the letter.
this letter regarding the evidences shown
whether the letter was written under the undue
influences.
7. Attested photocopy of the Noting of the reason In this regard the discussion between
for the delay in the final decision from Deputy Commissioner level and this
05/12/2008 to 02/02/2009, the same should be office is on hold.
sent to the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Attested photocopy of the enclosed Khata It is related to Patwari.
Khatauni No. 162/121.
9. The names of the account holders, who has not It is related to NDPL Narela office.
signed/ given thumb impression on the enclosed
affidavit and the Khata Khatauni.
10. The Deputy Commissioner has sent you for the In this regard the discussion between
re-investigation on 11/12/2008, have you re- Deputy Commissioner level and this
investigated? If yes then the attested photocopy office is on hold.
of the final report and if no the what is the
reason?
11. What is the evidence, on the basis of that you It is informed to the NDPL on the basis
have cancelled the letter dated 08/10/2008 and of your letter Dated 08/10/2008 that the
have ordered to maintain status-quo on the NOC of this office dated 10/06/2008
letter dated 10/06/2008. may be treated as drawn till the proper
NOC from other co-sharers is submitted
by the applicant, copy of letter enclosed.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Points no. 3 and 7 to 11 given in the reply of PIO are unsatisfactory and incomplete.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
It is found that the reply given by PIO is satisfactory. Hence, Appeal dismissed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Points no. 3 and 7 to 11 given in the reply of PIO are unsatisfactory and incomplete.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dharambir Singh
Respondent: Mr. Deepak on behalf of PIO Mr. Kunal
The PIO will give the following information to the Appellant which has not been given earlier:
1- Query 3- Copy of the affidavit by the Co-sharer.
2- Query 7- Copy of notings and correspondence with decision taken if any on file regarding
whether the NOC was issued correctly or not.
3- Query 8- Copy of the Khata & Khatauni of Serial no. 162/121.
4- Query 10- If any enquiry has been made into the matter a copy of the report including the file
notings.
5- Query 11- Letters and notings evidencing the basis on which the first NOC was given, then
withdrawn and then kept in abeyance.
The PIO was asked why the entire information had not been given initially. He states that the person
responsible for giving information late is BDO Mr. Hans Raj Singh, BDO Office Complex, Alipur, New
Delhi.
The First Appellate Authority Mr. Madhup Vyas has also failed to discharge his duty with any
responsibility.
Decision dated 21/08/2009:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to give the information mentioned above to the
Appellant before 10 September 2009. The Commission further issued a show cause notice to Mr. Hans
Raj Singh to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
He was directed to present himself before the Commission on 14 September 2009 at 10.30am alongwith
his written submissions. He was further directed to submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing held on 14/09/2009:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dharambir Singh
Respondent: Mr. MP Singh, Extension Officer, Office of the BDO, North West Alipur
On 07/09/2009 Mr. Singh has sent the information to PIO/SDM, Narela. The Appellant states that he has
not received the information till date. A copy of the information sent to the PIO has been submitted by
Mr. Singh. A copy of the same has been provided to the Appellant. The following statements were made
by Mr. MP Singh with regard to the order of the Commission:
Query No.3 – Copy of the Affidavit of the co-sharers- this is to be provided by the Manager NDPL,
Dist. Narela not by this office. He has written to the NDPL on 27/02/2009 asking them to respond to the
Appellant. He states that this Affidavit has never been on their files and that they are following –
GNCTD Development Dept. Panchayat Unit – Guidelines for the grant of Electric Connection to
tubewells for agricultural purposes. Para No. 3 “in a joint khewat, if the share of the share holder is more
than half acre his application can be separately considered for grant of electric connection”. He states
that his office has not received any NOCs from the co-sharers.
Query No. 7 – All his letters have been sent to the DC NW on file in a self contained on 11/02/2009.
Verified Copy of noting sheet is now being supplied.
Query No. 8- This information is available with the Halka Patwari of the tehsil Narela. He has a
photocopy of this information and not a certified copy. He is providing a photocopy of that information.
Query No. 10- Same as Query No. 7
Query No. 11- He is giving the photocopy of the noting sheet today.
Mr. Singh submits that there is no other information on record relating to Mr. Dharmabir’s complaints.
He received the RTI Application from PIO office on 10/02/2009 and he replied on 27/02/2009. The
incomplete reply was due to the fact that the file was put up to DC NW.
Mr. Dharambir states that he has seen a copy of the affidavit on the file and he alleges that the affidavit
has now been hidden by the office. The PIO states that copies of co-sharer’s affidavits are not filed with
the Department and these are filed directly with the NDPL. He will give this statement in writing to the
Appellant.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)