Central Information Commission
Krishna Kumar vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 26 April, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115891
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115911
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115913
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115914
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/116895
CIC/REVDP/A/2017/116897
Shri Krishna Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, BDO (North), DC Office Complex, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
GT Karnal Road, Alipore, Delhi-110036.
2. PIO, SDM (Narela), Naya Bans,
Alipore, Delhi-110036
3. PIO, O/o Divisional Commissioner,
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054
4. PIO, SDM (Model Town), Azadpur Flyover
Near NDPL Office, Azadpur, Delhi-110033
5. PIO, SDM (HQ), Revenue Deptt.,
DC Office Complex, Alipore, Delhi-110036
Through: Sh. M P Singh- Extension Officer;
Sh. Shashi Kant-Tehsildar(Narela); Sh. Shyam
Prakash-Tehsildar(MT)
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2019
Date of Decision : 18.04.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Page 1 of 9
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
115891 02.08.2016 20.08.2016 23.09.2016 18.01.2017
116895 05.07.2016 Nil 20.08.2016 24.01.2017
115911 05.07.2016 07.09.2016 12.08.2016 27.12.2016
115913 20.06.2016 19.06.2016 12.08.2016 30.12.2016
115914 20.06.2016 27.09.2016 12.08.2016 27.12.2016
116897 05.07.2016 Nil 23.09.2016 09.01.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115891 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 02.08.2016, sought the copy of decree, pertaining to his agricultural land submitted by him vide dairy dispatch number 2396 dated 20.03.2009.
PIO/BDO (North), Alipur, vide letter dated 20.08.2016 sent the appellant,copy of information as provided by the concerned official u/s 5(4) of RTI Act 2005, vide reply dated 04.08.2016 stating that information related to the decree, as sought by the Appellant was not available in the office. The appellant was requested to contact PIO/BDO between 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. on any working day regarding his/her application & clarification, if any, thereof.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal on 23.09.2016. FAA vide order dated 18.01.2017 directed the PIO to:
"....provide inspection of concerned records on 31.01.2017 at 11:00 a.m. to also make efforts to find concerned records. In case concerned records are not traceable, then appropriate necessary administrative action may be taken to fix responsibilities..."
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant states that he was informed that the decree submitted by him before the respondent, and information related to the said decree, was not available with the respondent. The appellant objects to the respondent's claim about not holding any information relating to the said decree, considering the document dated 24.11.2009, placed on record with the Second Appeal, whereby the office of SDM, Narela had informed that the decree dated 15.11.2008 by Senior Civil Judge Sh. Ajay Goel had been placed on record.
Respondent representing the O/o BDO states that the entry of such decree in the records and implementation of the decree falls within the ambit of responsibility of the Tehsildar, i.e. the Revenue department, and not of the office of the BDO. The respondent has further pointed out that though the appellant had been allowed inspection of records, he never visited the office of the respondent to obtain the necessary information.Page 2 of 9
Tehsildar - Sh. Shyam Prakash present for the hearing states that the entry of the decree passed by the Civil Courtexists in the khatauni, as claimed by the appellant. However, since the name of the appellant is neither recorded as bhumidhar nor as asami, hence as per the rules, no khasragirdawri could be recorded in the name of appellant with respect to the GaonSabha land. Rebutting the respondent's contention, the appellant has produced a bhumi- pustika, which is a pass-book bearing the stamp and signature of the Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar, Narela wherein the appellant's name features clearly as "bhumidhar".
Decision:
Considering the contentions raised by the parties, it is evident that the germane issue in the present case is about the entry of the decree of the Civil Court in the records of the respondent. Submissions of the Tehsildar, Model Town have indicated that the entry of the decree was available with the Revenue officials, hence no probable reason could be found explaining the omission on the part of the PIO/BDO, Alipur, Delhi for not transferring the RTI application to the actual custodian of information viz. the Tehsildar, attached to the office of the SDM, Model Town. On posing the question to the respondent, no justification could be offered by the representative for the PIO/BDO, thereby establishing the failure on the part of the PIO/BDO, Alipur.
The Commission notes another lapse in handling of this RTI case. On the one hand, the PIO/BDO, Alipur vide letter dated 04.08.2016 denied holding any information related to the decree, whereas, the FAA/ADM-Sh. Ajay Kumar passed an order for providing inspection of the concerned records to the appellant. This is a clear case of non-application of mind by the FAA and passing a mechanical order without addressing the moot question about existence of the relevant records.
In the light of the above facts and developments in the matter, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the FAA/ADM had erred in summarily disposing off the First Appeal, without addressing the actual issue about existence of the information. Hence, the instant appeal is remanded to the FAA/ADM for proper adjudication thereof, ensuring information as sought by the appellant is made available to him. A detailed Action Taken/Compliance Report shall be submitted before the Commission, by the O/o FAA/ADM within two weeks of receipt of this order. It is made clear that non-compliance of the directions shall attract appropriate penal action.
The Commission further directs the Registry of this Bench to seek appropriate explanation from the PIO/BDO, Alipur for i) not transferring the RTI application to the appropriate custodian of information, ii) nor informing the appellant about the actual custodian of information, iii) causing obstruction in the flow of information and iv) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The explanation from the PIO, BDO-Sh. Ajay Arora must reach the Commission within 13.05.2019, failing which appropriate proceedings for non- compliance shall be commenced.Page 3 of 9
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115911 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 05.07.2016 sought information on four points about his agricultural land located at village Bawana:-
1. Copy of khasra girdawari for khasra number 40 and quila number 2,3,8,12& 13 for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1996-2001.
2. Reasons for removing my name from khasra number 21 of khasra girdawri form-P-4, rule 54.
3. Circumstances under which my name got shifted from column number 21 to column number 4 of form-P-4, rule 54.
4. Provide copy of order dated 30.04.1985 of Shri B. Vijayan, Revenue Assistant, Kanjhawala block, in case number 26/RA/1983, Gram Sabha Bawana Vs Jeet Ram, under section 36A, DLR Act.
PIO/SDM (Narela), vide letter dated 07.09.2016 provided point wise information to the appellant informing that the record of khasragirdawri for the year 2014-15 can be obtained on payment of stipulated fees and that desired information is available at Tis Hazari, revenue record room, which can be obtained on application.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.08.2016. FAA vide order dated 27.12.2016 directed the PIO/SDM(Narela) to provide the revised information as sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated 05.07.2016 as per available revenue records within 10 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during the hearing. The PIO/SDM(NL)- Sh. T N Meena has submitted a written statement dated 16.04.2019 providing point wise response to the queries raised by the appellant stating that desired information can be availed from Tis Hazari, Record Room. The respondent has further informed that the name of appellant does not exist on the khasragirdawri because as per records, the appellant's name does not feature either asbhumidaror as asami. It was further informed that no entries in khasragirdawri can be recorded with respect to GaonSabha land, as per circular dated 09.09.2016 issued by the SDM(HQ), Alipur. The respondent's submission further revealed that the file relating to case no. 26/RA/1983, Gram SabhaBawanaVsJeet Ram, under section 36A, DLR Act does not exist in the office of SDM(Narela) nor is any such case pending before the Revenue Assistant/SDM(Narela).
However, no explanation has been provided by the respondent for i) the inordinate delay of over two years in furnishing response to the appellant; ii) non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 27.12.2016 and iii) violation of the timeline provided under the RTI Act. Upon receipt of the revised reply dated Page 4 of 9 16.04.2019 during the hearing, the appellant has expressed reservation about correctness of the same alleging that the information that is being provided, even now, is totally misguiding, evasive and incorrect.
Decision:
Examination of facts of the case reveal that this appears to be a case of harassment caused to the appellant, wherein a cultivator of land has been denied information about the land cultivated by him. There is no concrete response from the respondent about the records sought by him. The uncertainty in the approach of the respondent has led to undue and unnecessary harassment to the appellant. Even basic records sought by the appellant have been denied to him by the respondent. The arguments offered by the respondent hold no merit being evasive in nature. The Commission is convinced, particularly, after perusal of the detailed andself explanatoryorder dated 30.04.1985 of Shri B. Vijayan, Revenue Assistant, Kanjhawala block, that the appellant's claim is not misplaced. It is very unfortunate that the queries of the appellant which could have been responded three years back, have been answered vide reply dated 16.04.2019. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay in response, the Commission hereby directs Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice upon PIO/SDM(Narela)-Dr.AnkitaChakravarty, who held charge on 07.09.2016 and all the subsequent PIO/SDM(Narela) who held charge since 2016 till date for:
1) causing deliberate obstruction in the flow of information, 2) non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 27.12.2016 and 3) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Replies from the Noticee/s must reach the Commission by 20.05.2019, explaining with justifiable reason what has prevented dissemination of correct information for the past three years and why appropriate penal action should not be initiated against them.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115913 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 20.06.2016, sought copies of order Nos. MISC/SDM/NL/2016/747,MISC/SDM/NL/2016/832 and MISC/SDM/NL/2016/836 issued by the SDM office, Narela. He also sought to know the status of the file sent by the BDO, Alipur vide movement No. 1089 dated 08.01.2016.
PIO/SDM(Narela), vide letter dated 19.09.2016 furnished point wise information to the appellant, including copies of the relevant circulars/orders sought by the appellant.
Before the receipt of the PIO's reply dated 19.09.2016, the appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.08.2016. FAA vide order dated 30.12.2016 directed the PIO/SDM(Narela) to provide the certified copy as per RTI reply to appellant free of cost within 10 days.
Page 5 of 9Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
During the course of hearing, respondent has placed on record a document dated 16.04.2019, purportedly in compliance with the directions of the FAA. The respondent claims to have sent the records on 19.09.2016, and it is noted that the First Appeal dated 12.08.2016 was decided without considering the fact that information had already been provided by the PIO vide reply dated 19.09.2016.
Decision:
In the given circumstances, the Commission notes that information as available on record, has already been made available to the appellant, which unfortunately had been overlooked by the FAA in adjudication of the First Appeal. No further directions are required in this case.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/115914 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 20.06.2016 sought information on fourpoints from the SDM, Model Town:
1. Number of cases received from revenue estate Narela during the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 and sections these cases pertain to.
2. In how many cases received as mentioned in point number 1, notices to party were served.
3. How many times parties were served notices in case number 1893/RA/1996, Kishan Kumar Vaghera.
4. Action taken till date on case number 1893/RA/1996.
PIO/SDM(Model Town), vide letter dated 27.09.2016 provided the point wise information to the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.08.2016. FAA vide order dated 27.12.2016 directed the PIO/SDM(Model Town) to provide the revised information as sought by the appellant within 10 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
During the course of hearing, the respondent has placed on record a letter dated 27.01.2017 claiming that the appellant had been invited to inspect the records, however, the appellant never turned up, nor responded to the offer of inspection.
Appellant alleges that the letter dated 27.01.2017, produced by the respondent is a fabricated document which had never been served to him.
Decision:Page 6 of 9
Considering the facts and circumstances which transpired during the course of the hearing, it is noted that the substantive issue pertaining to the information sought by the appellant videRTI application dated 20.06.2016 has not been supplied to him. It is not possible to decide whether the appellant (not having availed the inspection) or the respondent (not having served the letter dated 27.01.2017) is at fault. In any case, the directions dated 27.12.2016, as issued by the FAA stand non-complied. In the light of the peculiar facts of the case, the Commission remands the case to the FAA, for adjudication of the appellant's grievance and ensure compliance of the order dated 27.12.2016, as had been held by Sh. Ajay Kumar, the then ADM-FAA. Action Taken report in this regard shall be submitted before the Commission by 30.05.2019, failing which, necessary action shall be initiated as per law.
CIC/REVDP/A/2017/116897 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 05.07.2016 sought information on four points:-
1. Provide me rules under which SDM/RA/(Narela) and Tehsildar (Narela) would prepare khasragirdawari in respect of khasra number 40 quila number 2,3,8,12 & 13.
2 & 3. Provide me rules and circumstances under which my name was removed from column number 21 of form P-5 rule 54 after 2001.
4. Action to be taken under IPC and CPA 1993 for missing file number 326/RA/1990 new number 1893/RA/1996 on concerned persons.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.09.2016.
FAA by order dated 09.01.2017 directed the PIO/SDM(Narela) to provide the available revenue records within 10 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during the hearing. The PIO/SDM(NL)- Sh. T N Meena has submitted a written statement dated 16.04.2019 providing point wise response to the queries raised by the appellant. However, no explanation has been provided by the respondent for i) the inordinate delay of over two years in furnishing response to the appellant; ii) non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 27.12.2016 and iii) violation of the timeline provided under the RTI Act.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/116895 Page 7 of 9 The Appellant vide RTI application dated 05.07.2016 sought information about the following three points:-
1. The path to ingress and egress to khasra number 40 quila number 2,3,8,12& 13.
2. Compensation for loss of crop for the year 2014-15.
3. Copy of khasragirdawari for the above khasra number.
Having not received any reply from the CPIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 20.08.2016.
FAA by order dated 24.01.2017 directed the PIO/SDM (Narela) to provide the reply to the appellant as per his RTI application dated 05.07.2016 within 10 days as per RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present during the hearing. The PIO/SDM(NL)- Sh. T N Meena has submitted a written statement dated 16.04.2019 providing point wise response to the queries raised by the appellant. However, no explanation has been provided by the respondent for i) the inordinate delay of over two years in furnishing response to the appellant; ii) non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 27.12.2016 and iii) violation of the timeline provided under the RTI Act. Appellant emphasised that he has sought the exact copy of khatauni, from the respondent, in response to his query number 1.
Decision:
The arguments offered by the respondent appear rather evasive in nature. The Commission finds it very disturbing that even basic responses which could have been provided three years back, have been provided now by letter dated 16.04.2019. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay in response, the Commission hereby directs Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice upon PIO/SDM(Narela)-Dr. Ankita Chakravarty, who held charge on 07.09.2016 and all the subsequent PIO/SDM(Narela) who held charge since 2016 till date for: 1) causing deliberate obstruction in the flow of information, 2) non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 27.12.2016 and 3) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Replies from the Noticee/s must reach the Commission by 20.05.2019, explaining with justifiable reason what has prevented dissemination of correct information for the past three years and why appropriate penal action should not be initiated against them.
Before concluding the decision, the Commission wishes to remark that during the course of this hearing, the appellant has submitted two earlier decisions passed by erstwhile Information Commissioners in 2009 and 2016. In both the instances, his queries remained the same as have been discussed in the above appeals and it is very unfortunate to note that despite so many rounds of litigation, the main issue about his agricultural land has so far not been Page 8 of 9 satisfactorily resolved. This is indicative of the failure of governance on the part of the respondent, which can be resolved by a detailed adjudication of the facts after a proper analysis of the relevant records. Instead, the approach of the respondent, as is noted above, has been mostly mechanical and perfunctory and hence the main issue has remained unresolved so far. The Commission strongly recommends that the ADM-North may conduct a proper hearing of the various cases filed by the appellant with respect to the same piece of land, and after thorough examination of the facts, decide the cases with a substantive order.
The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 9 of 9