CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001786/8853
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001786
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Shri. Inder Singh Uppal
(Through advocate S.C. Jain),
House No. 5/266,
Near P.S. Farash Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
GNCTD, Land and Building Department,
Land Management Branch,
Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2009
PIO replied : 18/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 28/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 03/12/2009
Second Appeal received on : 04/06/2010
S. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. What is the number of the file This office has tried its best to trace the information as sought by
which is still not traceable? you. But till date the information is not readily traceable. The reply
in this connection has already been communicated to you vide this
office letter dated 22/10/2008 and 27/07/2009 vide ID No. 1938/08
and 2564/09, which may kindly be seen.
2. Whether any notification in As per record available, the relevant file is reported missing. The
respect of excess vacant land in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 05/05 2005 in the
12, K.G. Marg, New Delhi under matter of CWP No. 7912-15 of 2003 directed the crime branch of the
Section 10 of ULCR Act was Delhi Police to investigate the matter. The relevant file has still not
ever issued and published in the been traced out. Hence, nothing can be said in the matter.
official gazette of the Delhi
government.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The reply of the PIO is not found to be satisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Fresh reply must be given to the Appellant by the PIO.
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Further to the order of the FAA, the PIO provided the information sought by the Appellant on 03/03/2010,
which was found to be unsatisfactory by the Appellant. A second appeal was filed which was returned on
the grounds of being time barred vide Commission’s letter bearing Diary No. 63500 dated 15/06/2010.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed an application before the Commission on 28/06/2010 for an opportunity of
hearing.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The PIO states that the file which is required to be referred to for providing the notification under
Section -10 of UNCR Act -1976 has not been found since many years. An affidavit to this effect has been
filed in High Court in 2003 in WP no. 7912/2003. The PIO claims that an inquiry has been setup in 2005
to trace out the file which had still not come to any conclusion. The Commission observes how public
money can be wasted in an elaborate game of pretence where for five years it is claimed that a committee
is inquiring into a missing file. The Commission directs the Dy. Commissioner (Central New Delhi Zone)
to file a police complaint for the theft/loss of the said file and send a copy of this police complaint to the
appellant and the Commission before 10/09/2010. If however the file is found the information should be
supplied before this date to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information before 10 September 2010 failing which Dy.
Commissioner (Central New Delhi) will file a police complaint and send a copy of it to the
Appellant and the Commission before 10/09/2010.
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
06 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
CC:
To,
Dy. Commissioner (Central New Delhi) through Mr. Rajiv Kumar PIO & Dy. Secretary;
Page 2 of 2