CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01005/SG/00056
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01005
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. H.S. Sokhi
H/o. Manjit Kaur
B 1/176 B, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi-110018
Respondent : Dy. Commissioner (West Zone) & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Rajauri Garden, New Delhi
RTI filed on : 12-07-2006
PIO replied : 17-07-2006
First appeal filed on : 20-04-2007
First Appellate Authority order: 24-05-2007
Second Appeal filed on : 13-06-2007
Appellant had field their Application under Right to Information Actt, 2005.
1. That indicate the daily progress made on application so far i.e. when did his application
reach which officer, for how long did it stay with that officer and what did he/she do during
that period.
2. Appellant had asked the names and designations of the officials who were supposed to take
action on his application and who have not done so?
3. What action would be taken against these officials for not doing their work and for causing
harassment to the public? By when would that action be taken?
4. By when would vigilance enquiries be initiated in the above matter for not taking action for
three years?
PIO Replied
Information under Right to Information Act, 2005 ID No. 224.
With reference to Appellant application on the subject cited above. as per report received form
AA&C/WZ, it is to inform to Appellant that the mutation has been executed and order passed
vide letter No. Tax/WZ/Mut./2006/07/113 dt. 24-08-2006 (copy enclosed).
The PIO had informed that the property was mutated in the name of Sh. H.S.Sohki.
as the mutation was to be made in the name of Mrs. Manjit Kaur. As regards the matter of
wrong mutation in respect of property No. B-1/176B, Vishnu Garden, the department has
furnished a report in reply to the present Appeal. The report shows that the mutation was made
as per the papers with the department.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. H.S. Sokhi
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Taheem
The information has been provided in time and appears to be correct based on the supporting papers
produced before the Commission by the PIO. The appellant wants that the name of the owner
should be changed, which is not in the domain of the Right to Information, and the Commission has
no powers to do this. Unless a proper transfer is made, the property cannot be transferred. The PIO
has offered to help the appellant in the matter.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber. .
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Shailesh Gandhi)
Information Commissioner
Date: 14-10-2008