In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/2090
Date of Hearing : November 11, 2011
Date of Decision : November 11, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Pradeep Yadav
R/o Near Rajkumar Jain House
VPO, Rajokari
New Delhi 110 038
The Applicant was present along with Shri Krishan Yadav during the hearing
Respondents
O/o SDM (VV)
Old Terminal Tax Building
Kapashera
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri Ajit Singh, PIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002090
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.8.6.11 with the PIO, O/oSDM(VV), GNCTD seeking
complete information along with all documents in respect of all the encroachments and illegal
constructions which have taken place in village Rajokri along with names of the officers who are
engaged in this activity, action taken to end this encroachment and illegal construction and the no. of
complaints that have been received in respect of the encroachment of Gaon Sabha Land and the
action taken. Shri Rajpal Singh, PIO replied on 6.7.11 enclosing the information furnished by the
concerned officer (Copy not legible). The Applicant filed an appeal dt.15.7.11 with the Appellate
Authority expressing his dissatisfaction with the information supplied. Shri D.P.Dwivedi, Appellate
Authority after hearing the matter on 28.7.11 disposed off the appeal vide his order dt.1.8.11 stating
the following:
‘….the details regarding encroachment of Gaon Sabha land will have to be given by BDO(South
West) and at the same time reply on illegal construction will have to be given by RA/SDM(VV) as
PIO. It is also seen that PIO has not applied himself before furnishing information to appellant. To
my mind the details of the cases registered u/s 81 etc. of DLR Act 1954 in the court of RA/SDM(VV)
has to be given to the appellant along with Khasra Nos., same approach has to be applied by the
PIO in respect of other parts of the RTI application. PIO/SDM(VV) and PIO/BDO(SW) are hereby
directed to reply the appellant within three weeks’.
The Applicant on apparently not receiving any further information, filed a second appeal dt.Nil before
CIC stating that Appellate Authority has passed the order without hearing him and that no information
has been received even after the Appellate Authority has passed the order.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the letter dt.19.7.11 inviting him to attend the hearing
to be held by the AA on 28.7.11 was received a day after the due date of hearing on 29.7.11 and
hence he was not able to attend the hearing . He also pointed out that the AA in his order has
mentioned incorrectly that he was present for the hearing . He further complained that the Appellate
Authority ought to have passed the order only after hearing him.
3. The Commission after hearing the submission of the Appellant and after having noted that the
Appellant is aggrieved at not being heard by the Appellate Authority, remands the case back to the
Appellate Authority with the direction that he hear both parties and pass a speaking order within
twenty days of receipt of this order. The Appellant is at liberty to approach the Commission if he is
still aggrieved with the decision of the Appellate Authority.
4. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Pradeep Yadav
R/o Near Rajkumar Jain House
VPO, Rajokari
New Delhi 110 038
2. The Public Information Officer
O/o SDM (VV)
Old Terminal Tax Building
Kapashera
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o Dy. Commissioner (SW)
Old Terminal Tax Building
Kapashera
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC