CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01006/SG/1784
Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2008/01006
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Karamvir Singh Rana
General Secretary
Yuva Chetna Samaj Sudhar Sangthan,
Khera Kalan,
Delhi - 110 082
Respondent : Additional District Magistrate (North-West)
& Public Information Officer
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Revenue Department, Distt. North-West,
Kanjhawala, Delhi
RTI Application filed on : 05/03/2007 ID NO. 1157
PIO’s Reply : 20/06/2007
First Appeal filed on : 19/11/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 29/06/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 16/05/2008
The appellant had sought following information:
Sl. Information Sought: PIO’s Reply
1. List of residential and industrial plots submitted Mutations of the properties given
demarcation fees in the court. directly as per provisions of
Consolidation of Holdings Section no.
21(1) and 21(2).
2. As per the scheme road and subways of industrial Yes, it still exists.
plots had (3-3) path holes. Do they still exist?
3. Resolution no. of Lal Dora and Railway. Resolution no. 25.
4. After de-notification of lands reserved for Metro No.
was allotted to earlier holders or not.
Not satisfied by the reply of the PIO the appellant filed first appeal before First Appellate
Authority.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“The first appellate authority in his order states that “The appellant has stated in the
appeal filed the information given is not complete and correct to some extent point wise. The
appellant clarified that he wanted information relating to the number of application received for
demarcation and the number of cases where demarcation done starting from the year 2005.
Similarly, the appellant point out discrepancies of measurement in respect of pathways of
industrial plots and the resolution no. of lal dora. Likewise, the appellant is not satisfied with the
reply given on point 4 of his Id application. SDM(narela) stated that the intent of the appellant as
regards to the information wanted by him could not be understood fully from the application
filed. He stated that as per deliberations held today, the information given will be
modified/corrected after seeing the records again and request two weeks’ period for the same.
The appellant has no objection for the same.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr.Karamvir Singh Rana
Respondent: Absent
The appellant states that inspite of the order of the First appellate authority no information has
been provided. He also alleges that the information given at point 2 is false.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the complete information to the appellant before 5 March 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO Mr. Kunal SDM within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 March, 2009. He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19th February 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)