Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Karam Vir Singh Rana vs Office Of The Sub-Divisional … on 2 March, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Karam Vir Singh Rana vs Office Of The Sub-Divisional … on 2 March, 2009
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
                       Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                           New Delhi -110 067
                          Tel.: + 91 11 26161796

                                              Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00440/2131
                                                     Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00440


Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Karam Vir Singh Rana,
General Secretary,
Yuva Chetna Sudhar Sangathan,
Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082.

Respondent                         :      SDM & PIO (Narala),
                                          Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
BDO Complex, Alipur, Delhi-110036.


RTI application filed on           :      20/04/2007
PIO replied                        :      31/10/2007
First appeal filed on              :      15/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order    :      not mentioned.
Second Appeal filed on             :      04/09/2008

Detail of required information.

The Appellant had asked in RTI Application for to supplying of certified copies
of revenue records from Khata No. 1 to last one in respect of Village Khera Kalan,
Delhi more particularly of residential, industrial and agricultural and all resolutions
passed under consolidation scheme of village Khera Kalan, Delhi

The PIO replied.

The Information cannot be provided to the appellant under Section 8 (1) (g) of the
RTI Act, 2005.

First Appellate Authority Ordered:

Not replied

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Karam Vir Singh Rana
Respondent: Mr. Deepak Kumar on behalf Mr. Kunal PIO and SDM Narela
The respondent states that people whose land records are part of of the khata are objecting to
giving the information. He is asked to justify the refusal with any of the exemption
provisions of the RTI Act. He then claims exemption under Section 8 (1) (g).
The respondent is asked as to how he can justify applying Section 8 (1) (g) to this
information. He is not able to give any explanation. It appears the PIO has applied the
exemption without any application of mind.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 15 March 2009

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
March 2, 2009

(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)