CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002934/6577
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002934
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ashok Sardana,
House No. B-39, West Nizamuddin,
New Delhi- 110013.
Respondent : Mr. Pawan Kumar
Public Information Officer & Sub-Registrar
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o The Sub - Registrar -IX,
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera, New Delhi - 110037.
RTI application filed on : 13-08-2009
PIO replied : not mentioned
First appeal filed on : 24-09-2009
First Appellate Authority order : 28-10-2009
Second Appeal received on : 18-11-2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 26/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 28/01/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought following information from PIO – GNCTD, Kapashera, New Delhi
regarding agreements to sell and sale deeds, rear portions of basement and GF of Plot no. B-113, in
Sarvodya Coop. Housing Society Ltd, in Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi – 17 to Mrs. Manju Singh on
22-11-1994 & 22-12-1994 respectively.
1. Is it correct that Mr. Nirmal Singh registered his two Agreements to sell the basement rear and
groung floor rear portion of plot No. B-113 in M/s Sarvodya Coop. ousing Society Ltd.,
Sarvodya enclave, New Delhi-17 to Mrs. Manju Sing on 22-11-1994 & 22-12-1994.
2. In whose name the above Property was transferred and the date of transfer.
3. The date of Registration of Sale deed in respect of basement rear and GF rear Portions of Plot
NO. B-113, in M/s Sarvodya Coop. ousing Society Ltd., Sarvodya enclave, New Delhi-17.
Please provide the certified copies of both the agreements to sell and sale deeds. I am ready to pay the
requisite fee for the same as per the RTI Act, 2005.
The PIO’s reply.
No information had been provided to the appellant.
Ground of the First Appeal:
No information had been provided to the appellant.
Order of the FAA:
“The undersigned has gone through the application filed before the PIO and reply furnished to
the appellant. SR-IX is directed to run a query for the concerned address to ascertain if any transaction
pertaining to it has taken place after 1997 and inform the appellant accordingly, who may also inspect
the records of SR Office. As regard document pertaining to pre 1997, he may seek information from
the officer of Divisional Commissioner cum Inspector General of Registrar”.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information had been supplied to the appellant by the PIO and not passed satisfactory order by
FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Ashok Sardana;
Respondent : Mr. Tilak Raj, Reader on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kumar, PIO & Sub-Registrar;
The respondent states that he has given the information to the appellant on 10/09/2009. The
information provided on 10/09/2009 was that the office has not information and the appellant could
inspect the records. The Respondent admits that the records of registration of sale documents is on a
computer. Hence the FAA had ordered that a query for the concerned address should be run to
ascertain if the transaction in respect of the property had taken place. The respondent states that the
PIO discovered on 27/01/2010 that this property falls in the jurisdiction of district south. He states that
the application will be transferred to the PIO of South District today.
The respondent states that the person responsible for not transferring the application is Mr. Pawan
Kumar, PIO & Sub-Registrar.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO of South District to provide the information free of cost to the
Appellant before 15 February 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not transferring the RTI application by the PIO as
required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not
transferring the RTI Application as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, PIO & Sub-Registrar will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 03 March 2010 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing
the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing
and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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
28 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (BK)