Central Information Commission
Anshu Tandon vs Ndmc on 17 October, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NDMCN/A/2024/111894
Anshu Tandon .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Property Tax Department,
Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025
Date of Decision : 17.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.01.2024
PIO replied on : 19.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 21.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"(i) Please provide certified copy of the decision based on which the address of properties, names and addresses of respective owners of all properties in Khan Market has been removed from the final assessment list for the year 2023-2024, provided on the email address of the applicant by the Director Tax via his email dated 4 July 2023. In case no such decision was taken then please provide the basis on which the final Page 1 of 7 assessment list has been edited, i.e., address of properties, names and addresses of respective owners of all properties in Khan Market has been omitted from the final assessment list for the year 2023-2024."
2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.02.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is mentioned that the information sought by you i.e. name and addresses of respective owners of all properties in Khan Market, has been treated as Third Party information. As per provisions contained in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act-2005 decision on disclosure of such available information can be taken by the PIO only after seeking written or oral submission of third party.
Further, no public interest has been mentioned by you in your application, in absence of which PIO will not be able to take a decision whether the 3rd party information should be disclosed or not. Therefore, the information sought by you, can neither be retrieved nor provided due to the reasons given above."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 29.09.2025 (copy marked to the Respondent) has been filed by the Appellant which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"1. That along-with email dated 8 May 2023, the Director (Tax), NDMC provided the extracts of all properties situated in Khan Market, from the proposed Assessment List for the year 2023-2024; copy of the email dated 8th May 2023 and the extracts received by the Appellant are annexed herewith.
2. From perusal of the proposed assessment list for the year 2023-2024, it is evident that the property number, name of owner/occupier', address of the owner/occupier and the rateable value of each and every property is mentioned. On the far-right side, there is also a column for remarks, if any.
3. From perusal of the extracts from the final/authenticated assessment List for the year 2023-2024 provided on the Appellant's email address, by the Page 2 of 7 Director (Tax), NDMC along-with the email dated 4th July 2023, annexed to the Appeal dated l7th ApriI 2024 as Annexure-C. (Date 12-21). it is evident that the property number name of the owner/occupier and the address of the owner/occupier have been omitted/removed from the extracts of the final authenticated assessment list.
4. Furthermore, the extracts do not bear the signature of the Chairperson or the officer authorized in this behalf, thereby violating Section 70 (6) of the NDMC Act which reads as follows:
"(1) When all objections have been disposed of, and the revision of the rateables value has been completed, the assessment list shall be authenticated by signature of the Chairperson or, as the case may be, the officer authorized by him in this behalf, who shall certify that except in the case, if any in which amendments haye been made as shown therein, no valid objection has been made to the ratable value or any other matter entered in said list.
"5. It is further pertinent to mention that even the 'Remark (if any)' column has also been omitted/removed from the final/authenticated assessment list in respect of which the Appellant filed the RTI dated 19-01-2024, only seeking information of the decision/basis on which the final/authenticated assessment list had been tampered with. In light of the flagrant violation of the RTI Act, the undersigned humbly requests your good-self to pass appropriate orders and also impose exemplary costs on the PIO, Property Tax Department, NDMC, for not providing the information sought vide the RTI Application dated 19.01.2024, wrongly and intentionally invoking Section 11(1) of the RII Act- 2005 with malafide intent"
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Not present.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 18.04.2024 is not available on record. The Appellant confirms non-service.
7. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his averred written submission and stated that he merely sought the basis on which the final authenticated list of assessments was amended as the same was different from the provisional Page 3 of 7 list. The said basis has not been communicated to him till date. He verbally affirmed during hearing that he is not interested in the personal details of property owner's and occupiers' which attracts exemption clause of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. During the hearing he clarified his locus qua the property as mentioned in his RTI application. He further contended that the reply of the PIO does not bear his name, designation and contact details which is in violation of the DoPT OM. In this regard, he sought intervention of the Commission.
8. The Respondent remained absent during hearing despite prior intimation.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the denial of information by the PIO cannot be faulted. No effort was made by the Respondent to understand the query raised by the Appellant and facilitate the information. In addition to it, non-adjudication of First Appeal by the FAA depicts that this case has been handled badly by the Respondents. The PIO is expected to have applied his/her mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the Appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Instead of doing the needful, the PIO gave vague reply, which is not appreciated. Further, absence of the Respondent during hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance is viewed adversely. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed.
10. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to revisit the contents of the RTI Application and provide a revised updated reply along with the basis on which the assessment list was amended, as is available in their office records, free of cost to the Appellant. In doing so, the Respondent may invoke Section 5(4) of the RTI Act for accessing the information from the concerned record holder. This direction should be complied by the Respondent PIO within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order, failing which he/she would stand show caused as to why penal action should be taken against him/her as per the RTI Act.
11. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
12. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the Page 4 of 7 designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
13. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
14. The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."Page 5 of 7
15. Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act: In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent Public Authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
16. The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA New Delhi Municipal Council, Property Tax Department, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 Page 6 of 7 Copy to:
The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, 7th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Any other recommendation(s) to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005-
Section 25(5) of the RTI Act Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)