In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001685
Date of Hearing : September 23, 2011
Date of Decision : September 23, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Shyamvir Singh
E14, Saket
New Delhi
The Appellant was present during the hearing
Respondents
SDM(HK)
O/o the Deputy Commissioner (South)
M.B.Road
Saket
New Delhi 110 068
Represented by : None
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001685
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed a RTI Application dt.22.2.11 with the PIO, O/o DC(South) seeking information
against eight points including the following whether it is fact that any activity other than
agriculture/diary/poultry on agricultural land attracts provision of section 81 of DLR Act, 1954 and
whether land in unauthorized colonies in the list of colonies to be regularized by Govt. are being
issued notices under section 81 of DLR Act, 1954.
The SPIO vide his letter dt.28.2.11 transferred the RTI Application to SDM(HK), Mehrauli, under
intimation to the Applicant. On not receiving any further reply to his RTI application The Applicant
filed an appeal dt.13.4.11 with the Appellate Authority. Ms.Nandini Paliwal, Appellate Authority after
conducting a hearing on 23.5.11 disposed of the first appeal directing the PIO to provide specific and
‘uptodate information with details’ to the Appellant within ten days of receipt of the order. On not
receiving any reply from the PIO, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.21.6.11 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that he had received a response from the PIO on 22.6.11
after he had filed the second appeal. He sought information against points 1 to 6 of the RTI
application which was missing. The Commission accordingly reviewed the information sought against
these points and directed as given below:
Point 1
The Commission holds that information sought does not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as
given u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Points 2 and 3
The PIO is directed to provide the information sought against these queries as either YES or NO.
Point 4
The Appellant submitted that he was informed that information is not available. He, however,
produced before the Commission a letter from the DCP(South) to the Dy. Commissioner (South)
enclosing the required enquiry report. The Appellant stated that while he has received the enquiry
report under RTI from the police he now wants an attested copy of the same from the Dy.
Commissioner, South He added that a misleading reply has therefore been sent to him by the PIO
in his reply dated 22.6.11.
The Commission, based on the letter produced by the Appellant before the Commission, directs the
PIO to locate the information that has already been sent to their office by DCP and to provide the
same to the Appellant. The PIO to explain to the Commission by 24.10.11 as to why incorrect
information has been supplied against this point to the Appellant.
Point 5
The Appellant stated that unauthorized colonies as per rule have to be treated as private land.
However, in a number of cases, according to him, notices have been issued to these colonies u/s 81
of DLR Act, 1954 which is a violation of the order of the Urban Development Department. He,
therefore, insisted on being furnished with o no. of such notices that have been issued.
The Commission directs the PIO to provide this information as available on record.
Point 6
Once the files related to the notices that have been issued are located, the PIO is directed to provide
to the Appellant, copies of the file notings and any other communication available in this file in respect
of the notices that have been issued.
All information should reach the Appellant by 23.10.11 and the Appellant.
3. The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon
him u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for not supplying the information within the prescribed time period
besides the reasons as to why he has not bothered to appear for the hearing before the
Commission. He is directed to submit his written explanations to the Commission by 30.10.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Shyamvir Singh
E14, Saket
New Delhi
2. The Public Information Officer
SDM(HK)
O/o the Deputy Commissioner (South)
M.B.Road
Saket
New Delhi 110 068
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o the Deputy Commissioner (South)
M.B.Road
Saket
New Delhi 110 068
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.