CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000077/6975
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000077
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rohtas,
B-29, Rajya Sabha Awas,
INA Colony,
New Delhi- 110023.
Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Shukla
Public Information Officer & SDM
Government of NCT of Delhi.
O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Najafgarh, SDM Office Complex,
Najafgarh, New Delhi- 110043.
RTI application filed on : 17/07/2009
PIO replied : 13/08/2009
First appeal filed on : 03/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 11/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 07/01/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 25/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 25/02/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether the offices of SDM The Appellant has himself given the
(Najafgarh) and Tehsildar diary no and therefore it is evident that
(Najafgarh) had received the the application had been received.
Appellant’s applications for issue of
Lal Dora Certificate (diary no 366 Does not come under the purview of RTI
dated 05/05/2009) and mutation of Act: Section 2(f).
land under P-7 (dated 05/05/2009).
2. Action taken on the basis of the Does not come under the purview of RTI
applications submitted by the Act: Section 2(f).
Appellant.
3. Time schedule for issuing a Lal Minimum time period is 21 days.
Dora Certificate and a land mutation
However, mutation of land is a judicial
certificate under P-7 after
process and the certificate is issued once
submission of application. all the requirements are fulfilled and
procedure ‘carried out’. There is no fixed
time period.
4. Whether the time limit had been Does not come under the purview of RTI
adhered to in the case of the Act: Section 2(f).
Appellant’s application.
5. Reasons for delay. Same as above.
6. Expected time frame within which Same as above.
the certificates will be issued.
7. Telephone nos of SDM and SDM- 25017834
Tehsildar, Najafgarh and the time Tehsildar- 25321838.
when they will be available to
answer queries.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the PIO/SDM (NG) to give specific answers to the queries 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the
Appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information had been given to the Appellant despite FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Shukla, Public Information Officer & SDM;
The PIO shows that he has provided the information as ordered by the First appellate
Authority to the Appellant on 04/11/2009. It appears that information has been provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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
25 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)