CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01518/SG/0868
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01518/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Sunder Kaushik,
576, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi-110017.
Respondent 1 : ADM & CPIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Central Distt., Darya Gunj,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 13/02/2008
PIO replied : 13/03/2008
First appeal filed on : 24/03/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 28/07/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 29/08/2008
The Information Sought as under:
S.N Information Sought PIO Reply
1. Is it correct that vide letter dated 28-08-02 There is no such record available which can explain
(Copy enclosed) the then Sub-Registrar-III that a FIR was lodged or not with SHO/P.S. Darya
had lodged a complaint with the SHO/P.S. Gunj on 28-08-02 by the Sub-Registrar regarding
Darya Gunj, Delhi alleging therein that tempering of record. However, the SHO (Darya
tampering of Govt. records has taken place Gunj) has been provided with the copy of said
in his office because the particular of report and requested to submit his comments. The
document no. 134 registered in Addl. Book record available in this office the particular of the
No. 1, Volume No. 3621 on pages 116 to concerned records/file.
118 do not tally said latter may also be
provided.
2. Is it correct that the particular of document As per records available in this office, the particular
No. 4013 registered in Addl. Book No.1, of the document no. 4013 registered in Addl. Book
Volume No. 3585 on pages 64 to 67 (Copy No-1, Volume No. 3585, Pages 64-67 photocopy of
enclosed) do not tally with those of the which has been provided by the Appellant, don’t
Index (copy enclosed) in this respect kindly tally with peshi register.
inform:
a. In case the Particular differ a. After inspecting the peshi register, it has
whether any police report has been been observed that there is no cutting/
made with respect to the said overwriting in that particular entry in peshi
tampering of records and copy of register. However, the record/file pertaining
such report may kindly be provided to police report for tampering of records is
as pr rules. not available in this office.
b. If not, Reasons for not lodging the b. The reasons for not lodging the police
police report. report can be best explained by the then
Sub-Registrar.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The ADM (Central)/ PIO has forwarded a copy of the reply from SR-III to the applicant. In the case
of dr. D.V. Rao vs. Dept. of Legal Affairs (File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045), CIC has decided in its
judgments dated 21-04-06.
In view of what has been stated above, the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed on the ground
that a correct reply has been filed by PIO and which was thereafter been confirmed by the report of
SHO (Darya Gunj) furnished during appeal proceedings. Moreover, the reasons for not taking a
particular course of action also can not be taken up under the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shyam Sunder Kaushik
Respondent: Mr.G.P.Singh PIO
The reply by the respondent shows that the Public authority had no record or knowledge of a
complaint made by the Sub-Registrar to the S.H.O. of the Daryaganj Police station about
tampering with a Govt. record and ‘a conspiracy to cheat’. The respondent states that he does
not know how or why the complaint is not on the records of the Public authority.
The appellant is pointing out a case at point 2 where the Public authority in February 2008
has acknowledged that ‘After inspecting the peshi register, it has been observed that there is no
cutting/ overwriting in that particular entry in peshi register. However, the record/file pertaining to
police report for tampering of records is not available in this office.’ The respondent states that
investigations are going on. The Commission sees that the technical needs of giving the information
have been met, but the Public authority seems extremely reluctant to take action to stop what appears
to be doubtful practices. Inspite of a Citizen showing doubtful transactions, the Public authority does
not appear to be vigorously doing anything.
Decision:
Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5 January 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)