CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001344/4054
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001344
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Sharma
Advocate
Chamber No. B-42, B. G. S. Block,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi -110054.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Assessment & Collection Department)
Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110024.
RTI application filed on : 10/09/2008
PIO replied : 08/10/2008
First appeal filed on : 17/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 24/02/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 27/05/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Is it correct that Rateable Value has been deleted It is a question of interpretation, which is
on 01.08.2003 and in place of it, Annual Value not covered under RTI Act.
has been substituted for operationalising property
tax system under Unit Area Method?
2. Is it also true that Rateable Value System It is a question of interpretation, which is
remained limited only for those cases, which not covered under RTI Act.
came under the scope of transitory provisions
under 116G(2)?
3. Is it also correct that as per earlier interpretation It is a question of interpretation, which is
of MCD, the scope of transitory provisions not covered under RTI Act.
included three categories of cases:-
a) Exparte cases,
b) Remanded cases,
c) Pending proposals got time barred on
31.03.2007.
4. a) Is it correct that present Assessors & This is a hypothetical question as to
Collector Mr. A. K. Ambasth has whether Shri A. K. Ambasth has projected
projected himself as saver of Municipal himself as a saver of Municipal Revenue.
revenue? Is it true that he has been the
major critics of financial loss incurred to
MCD due to reopening/settlement of
cases as S. No. (a) & (b) of question No. 3
under UAM?
b) Is it also true, that he has not decided any
case under UAM, which could have added
to financial loss to MCD? No.
5. Is it correct that since joining in the A&C The question is of hypothetical.
Department of MCD, he has maintained his pro-
revenue stand and therefore in every meeting
with his officers and staff, he disallowed his
subordinates to take up any cases under UAM? Is
it also true that even he has file affidavit (April –
May2007) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
High Court showing such type of cases have
caused heavy financial loss to MCD i.e. in
crores?
6. Is it true that his determination to over come such The question has many parts including
financial loss to MCD has been instrumental in question of interpretation. However, as
bringing out office order/Circular of
regards opinion of CLO, it may be stated,
Commissioner dated 12.3.2007, whichas per available record, the Circular dated
reinterpreted the pending cases under 116 G(2) 18.03.2004, before issue was vetted by
and removed the category of experte cases from CLO. As regards issue of Circular dated
its sphere? Or whether any opinion was sought 12.03.2007, as per available record, the
from the chief law officer of the MCD before same was issued after obtaining opinion of
issuing the OO/Circular dated 18.03.2004 and Law Officer (HQ), endorsed by CLO and
12.03.2007, if yes, what was opined? Is there any after discussion, as recorded involving the
ambiguity in the opinion of the CLO before Chief Law Officer, took place before
issuing each of the aforesaid OO/Circular? issuing the said Order/Circular. The
relevant noting can be inspected on any
working day after depositing the admissible
fees.
7. Is it also correct that later on remanded cases The question is of interpretation.
were also taken out of the scope of 116 G(2)
(which covered transitory provisions) for which
even affidavit has been filed by Mr. A. K.
Ambasth in Supreme Court (SLP case).
8. Is it not correct that the time limit of pending The question is of interpretation.
proposal got over on 31.03.2007?
9. Now, which type of category of cases as per Officers are required to take action as per
A&C can be considered by him or his DMC Act.
subordinates under section 116 G (2) of the
amended DMC Act? Whether Assessor and
Collector is empowered to permit his subordinate
to consider any case of S. No. (a) to (c) of
Question no. 3 -which have been taken out of
ambit or transitory provision under 116 G (2)?
10. Can A&C is empowered to pass or to give The question is of interpretation.
permission to his junior officers tom
reopen/rectify the old exparte cases under UAM
after 12.03.2007?
11. Can A&C himself or permit his juniors to The question is of interpretation. It is not
reopen/rectify the exparte cases under old system clear what is the meaning of TV (Perhaps
or RV when stands deleted on 01.08.2003? Is it RV). The question is not clear. In any case,
not true that the TV had been operative to a since the question relates to interpretation,
limited area of transitory provisions only, when hence, does not fall within the ambit of RTI
all type of cases are no longer fit to be considered Act.
u/s 116 G92), then how RV are being touched by
any of the assessing officer?
12. Since all category of cases have come out of the The question is hypothetical and also
scope of Section 116 G (2), then how and why involves interpretation; hence, reply can not
the A&C and his juniors are still reopening cases be given. As regards changing of RV by
under RV system? Is it not a blatant violation of A&C by carrying rectification, the reply to
the DMC Act? Is it not a malafide conduct of question No. 4 refers to.
officers of A&C Deptt. especially of A&C, who
himself is charging the RV by carring
rectifications? Is it not causing financial loss to
MCD when the officers were not empowered or
supposed to charge the RVs but to take recovery
actions but they are reducing/lowering the RV for
their selfish interest and what is the duty of the
HOD/A&C in such scenario?
13. Whether such conduct of MCD officers should The question has many parts which include
not be challenged in court of Law? Has any interpretation/hypothetical question. As per
proposal to amend/delete section 116 G(2) has available record, no proposal has been
been moved by Mr. A. K. Ambasth? Is it not moved to amend/delete section 116 G (2).
correct that present Assessor and Collector is
befooling his superiors by giving wrong
interpretation of the DMC Act.
14. Whether it is true that the OO/Circular dated Reply to point no. 14 -As per available
18.03.2004 was also adopted by the House and record, on the basis of Note of the ten A&C
the provisions of the said OO/Circular was dated 15.3.2004 indicating, as desired by
withdrawn by the mere order of the the Commissioner, the circular dated
Commissioner dated 12.03.2007 without putting 18.3.2004, was issued after getting the
up the same before the House? Is it legally same vetted from the Chief Law Officer.
permissible? Further, as per available record, circular
dated 12.3.2007 was issued under the
signature of the then commissioner, MCD.
The remaining portion entails
interpretation.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Non-receipt of desired information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority
The FAA in his order said that he found the questions raised in RTI Application of the Appellant
involved interpretation of DMC Act and circular/guidelines of A&C Deptt of MCD, hence
beyond the scope of RTI Act.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory action by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Sharma
Respondent:Absent
The appellant has sought clarifications and interpretations and not information as defined under
Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
What is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
If information is not provided in the time stipulated under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, it has to be provided free of
cost to the Appellant
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
10 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(GJ)