CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000521/7433
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000521
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Hari Ram Gupta,
B- 21, Madhuban,
Delhi – 110092
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Assessment & Collection
City Zone, Asaf Ali Road,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 09/11/2009 PIO replied : 11/12/2009 First appeal filed on : 07/01/2010 First Appellate Authority order : No order Second Appeal received on : 26/02/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/03/2010 Hearing Held on : 09/04/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. The RTI application was sought with regard to Yes
house tax of property 6112 known as Ram Dev
Market, Gali Batashan Khari Baoli Delhi-6.
2. Ld PIO has given wrong information and The excess payment of Rs 16540 will be
played with figures wherein he had shown the adjusted in the coming years. This was
refund amount to be nil through his replies sent informed by the office reply dated 30/07/2009
on 30/07/2009 and 10/09/2009. and 10/09/2009. The money would not be
refunded but adjusted. Thus, there was no
difference of figures.
3. Whether it was correct that the demand till Yes
1998-99 against the property was Rs 723272 as
per the order passed on 25/05/2009 and the fact
the Appellant had also made a payment of Rs
708000.
4. Whether the net payment (enclosed) made by Yes
the Appellant was tallying with the records of
the department.
5. Whether the demand and payment (chart Refund will not be allowed. The excess
enclosed) was tallying with the records of the payment of Rs 16540 will be adjusted in the
department. coming years.
6. Whether the Appellant was entitled to a refund Refundable amount indicated by the
of Rs 19055 as on 31/03/1999. Appellant is wrong. The excess payment of
Rs 16540 will be adjusted in the coming
Whether there was a difference in calculation. years.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory, incomplete and wrong information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a
perusal of the papers it appears that the PIO has provided the information as per the records. The
appellant is claiming that he is entitled to a certain rebate as per a circular of MCD dated
20/03/1999. The Appellant is trying to make the RTI application as a means for claiming this
rebate. On the basis of his claim for rebate he contends that the information being provided by
the PIO is wrong. The PIO’s information will reflect the position as per the records maintained
by the public authority. The Appellant should pursue his claim for rebate separately.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided.
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
9 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(RR)