CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/00691/12448
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000691
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Charan Singh
H No 474, Jatav Mohalla,
Tughlakabad Village,
New Delhi 110044
Respondent : Mr. Kuldeep Singh
PIO & SDM (Kalkaji)
Revenue Department, GNCTD
37, Institutional Area, Tughlaqabad
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2010
PIO replied on : 22/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : Not enclosed
First Appellate Authority order of : 04/02/2011
Second Appeal received on : 10/03/2011
Information Sought PIO`s reply
1. Is it true that Khasra No 123(4-6) Village Tughlaqabad was Khasra 123(4-6) Sarkar Daulat Sardar.
mentioned in the name of Johar Chamarwala (Pond) in the Record from 1948-49 are not available
year 1948-49 in your record? with the SDM(KJ office)
2. Is it true that the above land was transferred to the other There is no information with regards
agency? to this.
3. If yes, why? Provide the relevant certified copies thereof. -do-
4. Is it true that Khasra No 122(2-17),124/1(4-5)Min (019) -do-
village Tughlaquabad was mentioned in the name of Guru
Ravidas Jainti Samaroh Samiti (Regd. Tughlaquabad) in the
year 1956-62 in your record?
5. Is it true tha the above land was transferred to the other Same
agency?
6. If yes, why? Provide the relevant certified copies thereof. -do-
7. Is it true that Khasra No 123, Village Tughlakabadd was Sarkar Daulat Sardar is the name in
mentioned in the name of Guru Ravidas Mandir and Johar records.
Charamwala in the year 1987 -89 in your record?
8. Is it true that the above land was transferred to the other Same as Ans. No 2
agency?
9. If yes, why? Provide the relevant certified copies thereof. Same as Ans No 2
10. Provide the certified copies/maps Sizera of Kahsra nos 122(2- Copy attached
17),123(406)124/1(4-5)124 Min (0-19), Village Tughlakabad
(total land 12 bhiga -07 bisava)
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not enclosed
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Necessary information has been supplied by the PIO. Incase of information that is incomplete, the PIO
should make an effort to trace it to the relevant office and provide the information to the applicant
within ten days of receipt of order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The order of the FAA was unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Charan Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Onkar Dutt, Patwari on behalf of Mr. Kuldeep Singh, PIO & SDM;
The Deemed PIO Mr. Onkar Dutt states that he could get information anywhere and the
records relates to 1948-49. He states that he has tried to obtain the information from LAC(South),
Mehrauli Record Room and Tis Hazari Record Room. He states that he received partial information
but states that he could not get complete information and hence did not send any information. The
Appellant has sought information on revenue records and if the department take a position that they
cannot locate revenue records, this is a very serious matter. Even if Mr. Onkar Dutt Deemed PIO could
not obtain the information he should have atleast informed the Appellant about this.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Dy. Commissioner (South) Mrs. Nandini Paliwal to
ensure that the PIO Mr. Kuldeep Singh sends the information to the Appellant as per the
records before 15 June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Onkar Dutt, Patwari within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior
officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First
Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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. Onkar Dutt, Patwari will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
16 June 2011 at 10.30am 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
20 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
CC: To,
Mrs. Nandini Paliwal
Dy. Commissioner (South)
Revenue Department, GNCTD
O/o the DC (South)
M.B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi