CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003374/11057
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003374
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Singh,
60-B, Himayanpur,
Safdarganj Enclave,
New Delhi-29
Respondent : Mr. Pravesh Ranjan Jha
Public Information Officer & SDM,
Office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Revenue Department
Hauz Khas, Old Tehsil Building,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-30
RTI application filed on : 01/06/2010
PIO replied : 16/07/2010 & 22/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 29/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/11/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information regarding the share of applicant’s father after his Inteqal. The
queries are:
1. Specify the reason of increased inteqal of applicant’s father as mentioned in the inteqal to be 7/24.
2. Provide with the details of the mentioned inteqal.
3. Mention whether all the requirements in the above-mentioned inteqal is considered. Provide with
the certified copy of the same.
4. Furnish with the description of the same with the certified copies.
5. Specify the reasons, if inteqal is not yet considered.
6. Mention whether now the inteqal can be considered, with descriptions.
7. Specify, if some authority can be held responsible for not considering the Inteqal. Kindly provide
with details.
Reply of PIO:
The certified copies of the documents are enclosed.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information given by PIO.
Order of the FAA:
FAA ordered, “SDM (HK) is directed to re-examine the reply furnished by her office and provide the
information directly to the appellant within 10 days on receipt of this order under intimation to this office.
Appeal disposed off accordingly.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information given by PIO, even after FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shailandra Singh representing Mr. Shyam Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Tara Chand, NT on behalf of Mr. Pravesh Ranjan Jha, PIO & SDM;
The PIO has given some of the information but the Appellant wants the basis of mutation for
Intkal No. 1603.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the basis on which mutation had been done vide
Intkal No.1603. The PIO will provide attested photocopies of all the papers to the
Appellant before 10 February 2011.
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
20 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)