CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003014/10220
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003014
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : S.P. Singh Shishodia
140, Lawyers Chambers, Western Wings
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
Respondent : The Public Information Officer
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054
RTI application filed on : 03/03/2010
PIO replied : 08/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 14/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 13/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 18/10/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer
(PIO)
1 Whether the lands falling under Yes
Khasra No. 276 to 284 and 289 to
290 of village Aali, Delhi were
acquired by the government under
Award No. 3/97-98.
2 Whether Smt. Dhola Devi was the As per Naksha Mutizimin, 'No'.
owner of the aforesaid lands at the
time of issuance of the Notifications
U/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
3 Whether Dhola Devi was the Same as above.
Bhoomidar of the said lands at the
time of acquisition of the said lands.
4 Basis, authority declared and the As per award, this is a Govt. Order.
laws under which lands out of said
Khasra numbers 277, 284, and 289
etc. were declared private lands.
5 If yes, the rules and regulations Not Applicable
1
under which the said lands were
declared private lands and the
copies of the orders, office noting
under which the said lands were
declared private lands and the name
and authority of who had passed
such orders.
6 Whether the authority declaring the Not Applicable
said private lands was competent to
declare the said lands private lands.
7 Whether the said lands were vacant As per possession report dated
at the time of acquisition. 26/05/1998, this is a built up area.
8 Complete details of who had built As per available office records, the law of
structures on the said lands. built up structure is not available in the
records.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and dissatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The said Appeal was filed by Sh S.P.Singh Shishodia in respect of ID No. 130
against the ADM(S). In this matter Notices were Issued from the Office of the First
Appellate Authority on 30.7.10 for hearing In this matter on 12.8.2010 at 3.00 p.m.
Sh. S.P.Singh Shishodia appellant and Sh. S.K,Srivastava representative of
SPIO/ADM(S) were present
On perusal of the appeal filed by Sh.S.P.Singh Shishodia, it appears that the reply has
been furnished by the said office well in time but the appellant was not satisfied with the
reply. ADM(S) is directed to re-examine his RYE application and furnish afresh available
information directly to the appellant within 10 days on receipt of this order under
intimation to this office. Appeal disposed off accordingly.
ADM (S) directed to re-examine RTI Application and furnish available information to the
appellant within 10 working days.”
Decision:
From a perusal of the papers it appears that the First appellate authority’s
decision that the information available has been provided appears correct.
However the appellant states that consequent to the order of the FAA the
PIO should have provided information available information to the
appellant. The PIO should have atleast informed the appellant if no further
information was available.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide further information if any that is available on
the records to the appellant before 20 December 2010.
2
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO may be guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not
replying completely 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 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 25 December, 2010. He will also send
the information sent to the appellant as per this decision with the speed post receipt
as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
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
29 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(RP)
3