Central Information Commission
Shanti Devi vs Gnctd on 26 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/131974
SHANTI DEVI .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
SDM (Hauz Khas), Office of the
ADM-South, M. B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi-110068 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.11.2023
Date of Decision : 06.11.2023
Date of SCN Decision : 11.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.03.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 10.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"Certified copies of all documents related to P-7 decision dated 16.03.2009 (Le Processing case of making correction in the revenue Page 1 of 9 record called Farad Badar) relating to Khasra No 50/8, situated in Abadi Deh of Village Humyaunpur, New Delhi in the name of Smt Shanti Devi W/o Late Lakhi Ram, aged 85 years R/o B-4/243, Safarjang Enclave, New Delhi-110029 be supplied to the undersigned"."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2023, held as under:
"The documents placed on record were perused. Sh. Mahendra Nath informed that no reply of RTI has been received. The reply to the RTI has been given by the PIO during the hearing. The applicant is not satisfied with the reply. The SPIO/SDM (Hauz Khas) is directed to trace the requisite file and furnish information to appellant within 02 weeks.
The appeal is disposed-off, accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 03.11.2023:
The following were present:-
Appellant: The appellant's representative Sant Mahinder Nath, attended the hearing.
Respondent: The respondent was not present despite notice The respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that no information was furnished to him by the CPIO. The AR further stated that the appellant is a senior citizen, but the respondent is harassing her by not providing information.
Order on 06.11.2023:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the AR and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant, free of cost, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.Page 2 of 9
Moreover, the Commission takes a serious view of the absence of the CPIO, SDM Office Hauz Khas, Delhi despite the notice. The Commission directs him to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining his absence, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority, before 30.11.2023, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the CPIO failed to provide the requisite information to the appellant within the stipulated timeframe as mandated by the RTI Act. Consequently, the Commission hereby seeks an explanation from the CPIO regarding why punitive measures amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty-Five Thousand Rupees) under Section 20(1) and disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him. This is in light of his failure to furnish the requisite response/information to the appellant within the prescribed RTI Act timeframe. The CPIO is required to submit his written statements both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within a 21-day period from the date of receiving this order, with an intimation sent to the Commission. The Commission will take a final decision regarding the recommendation of penal action after reviewing the written submission provided by the CPIO.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 11.09.2024: The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sant Mahinder Nath, representative of the Appellant, attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Kumar, SDM (Hauz Khas) and Shri Shiv Kumar, Patwari, attended the hearing in person.
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application till date.Page 3 of 9
The Respondent submitted that in compliance to the previous direction passed on 06.11.2023, by the Commission, their office has issued a letter to the Appellant dated 17.11.2023 for appearance and inspection of the concerned record in the office of the SDM (Hauz Khas) on 20.11.2023 at 02:00 PM. Thereafter, another reminder letter was issued vide dated 21.11.2023 to the Appellant for appearance and inspection of the concerned record on 24.11.2023 at 01:00 PM but the Appellant did not appear for inspection. He added that their office has made sincere efforts to locate the requisite information but the same is not available in their records. He further added that as per Halqua Patwari report, the information sought by applicant i.e. certified copy of documents related to P-7 dated 16.03.2009 relating to Kh.No.50/8 village Humayunpur, New Delhi, was not found in revenue records available with Halqua Patwari. He apprised the bench of the fact the averred village got urbanised in the year 1966 and now the DMC act is applicable. He also submitted that as per their Jamabandi and Khasra Girdhawari records, no correction in the land records had been made, however, an incomplete Fard Badar pertains to khasra no. 50/8 dated 13/02/2009 was found attached at the back side of Jamabandi of year 1947-48 of village Humayupur, but the Appellant refused to accept the copy of it.
The representative of the Appellant interjected and prayed before the bench for re-construction of the averred record i.e. P-7 dated 16.03.2009 relating to Kh.No. 50/8 village Humayunpur, New Delhi.
In response, the Commission apprised the representative of the Appellant that the same is beyond the power of this Commission and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.
A written explanation to SCN has been filed by Dr. Mukesh Kumar, SDM (Hauz Khas), vide letter dated 30.11.2023, which is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below :
"1. It is humbly submitted in the aforesaid matter that Hon'ble Commission vide its order dated 06/11/2023 directed the undersigned to furnish written submission before the commission explaining his absence along with comments of the F.A.A. Page 4 of 9 before 30/11/2023. Further, the Hon'ble Commission also sought an explanation from the CPIO regarding why punitive measure amounting to Rs.25,000/- under section 20 (1) and disciplinary proceedings under section 20(2) of RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him in the light of his failure to furnish the requisite response / information to the appellant within the prescribed RTI Act time frame.
2. That, at the outset, the non-appearance is highly regretted and unconditional apology is tendered before this Hon'ble Commission. The non appearance is neither intentional nor deliberate. I have made no attempt at any wilful, contumacious disobedience of or attempt to overreach any orders of this Hon'ble Commission and I have highest respect/regard for the orders and majesty of this Hon'ble Commission.
3. It is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Commission issued notice for hearing on 03/11/2023 in the above said matter. The notice was down marked to the DA with the instructions to apprise the undersigned before the date of hearing before the Hon'ble Commission. However, due to the termination of duties of Dealing hand in the instant case vide Dy. Commissioner-V(HQ) circular dated 31/10/2023, the letter could not been brought into the notice of the undersigned. The copy of the said circular is annexed as Annexure-"A". Many staffs working at the office of undersigned were withdrawn instantly vide above said order. Office of Sub-Division Magistrate is involved in many administrative works which are essential for smooth functioning of the district on day-to-day basis. In view of aforesaid administrative circumstances and shortage of staff which is beyond the control of undersigned, undersigned could not appear on the said date before Hon'ble Commission.
4. That in the compliance of the order dated 06/11/2023 of this Hon'ble Commission, a letter has been sent to Smt. Shanti Devi vide dated 17/11/2023 for appearance and re-inspection of the concerned record in the office of the SDM (Hauz Khas) on 20/11/2023 at 02:00 PM. Thereafter, a reminder letter has also been issued vide dated 21/11/2023 for appearance and re-inspection of the concerned record on 24/11/2023 at 01:00 PM, also the letter dated 21/11/2023 forwarded through whatsapp and also communicated through phone on the mobile no.9318307992. But the applicant did not appear for inspection. Copy of letter dated 17/11/2023 & 24/11/2023 is hereby annexed as Annexure-"B" & "C".
5. Further, it is submitted that the application dated 20/03/2023 of Smt. Shanti Devi was duly forwarded to APIO (Tehsildar Hauz Khas) and further received by Halqua Patwari on 05/04/2023 and as per the Halqua Patwari report, the desired information dated 30/05/2023 the concerned records (i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1947-48, Khasra Girdawari) has been inspected by Sh. Mahinder Nath the representative of the applicant and desired record was not found. And during the hearing dated.14/06/2023 before Ld. First appellant authority, the representative of the applicant was duly informed to re-inspect the concerned records on any working day between 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM but he did not appeared for re-inspection of the records in the office. The Halqua Patwari report dated 30/05/2023 along with covering letter of APIO is annexed as annexure-"D". And Halqua Patwari report dated Page 5 of 9 28/11/2023 is annexed as Annexure-"E" and the order of Ld. First Appellant Authority dated 15/06/2023 is annexed as Annexure "F".
6. In view of above facts, Hon'ble Commission is humbly prayed to take a sympathetic view for non appearance on dated 03/11/2023 and kindly withdraw explanation issued against the undersigned as non appearance was neither intentionally nor deliberately. Further, the undersigned assured that the directions of the Hon'ble Commission shall be complied timely in future."
After the conclusion of the hearing, a copy of written submission has been received from the Appellant, vide letter dated 11.09.2024, which is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below :
"मान्यवर निवेदि यह है कि मैं सन्त महे न्र िाथ S/० शाांनत दे वी एवां स्व लक्खी राम निवासी B-4/243 सफदरजांग एन्िलेव िई ददल्ली-110029 उम्र तिरीबि 60 साल आज ददिााँि 11-9-24 िो CIC िे समक्ष पेश हुआ और मैंिे अपिा समक्ष आपिे सामिे रखा मैंिे सारी स्स्थनत बताई अपिी माता जी िे अधििार पत्र िे माध्यम से अब मैं िुछ मान्यवर आयुक्त साहब िे सामिे पेपर जमा िरािा चाहता हाँ और स्स्थनत बतािा चाहता हाँ हमिे स्जस ववषय में तहसील से certified copy माांगी थी वो दे िे में असमथथ रहे और आज भी उन्होंिे िोई पेपर िहीां ददखाये स्जससे मुझे सन्तुस्टि हो क्योंकि मैंिे 20-11-2009 में तहसील िे ररिार्थ से तहसील िे माध्यम से अपिी certified copy प्राप्त िी थी जोकि ररिार्थ रूम िे रस्जस्िर में भी एन्िरी है और ललखा है कि उसे certified िरिे िे बाद फाईल िो पिवारी िौं वावपि िर दी गई। इसिे बाद मैंिे 2-4- 2014 िो CA form िे माध्यम से ररिार्थ रूम से certified िापी प्राप्त िी और उन्होंिे मुझे certified copy दी और उििे रस्जस्िर में भी यही entry है कि certified िरिे िे बाद िापी पिवारी िो वावपस िर दी गई अब हमिे पहले CA Form से िापी माांगी तो िहीां लमली उसिे बाद हमिे RTI से िापी माांगी तो भी हमें िापी िहीां लमली तो हमिे First Appeal िी तो उसिा भी िोई पुख्ता जवाव िहीां ददया उसिे बाद मैंिे CIC में भी आपिे यहााँ अपील िी स्जसिा िांबर CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/131974-UM उसमें आदे श हुआ कि 21 ददि िे अन्दर आपिो copy लमल जायेगी लेकिि मुझे िोई िापी िहीां लमली कफर मैंिे CIC में कफर अपील िी तो आज ददिााँि 11-9-24 िो सम्बांधित अधििारी वहााँ आये और हमारे पास िोई फाईल िहीां है जबकि मेरे पास सारा ररिार्थ है स्जसे मैं आपिे यहााँ फोिोिापी िे रूप में जमा िरवा रहा हाँ हमें हमारी फाईल िी Page 6 of 9 ही certified copy ददलवाई जाये। बाकि आपिे आदे श िा इांतजार रहे गा। आपिी अनत िृपा होगी।"
After the conclusion of the hearing, a copy of written submission has been received from Dr. Mukesh Kumar, SDM (Hauz Khas), vide letter dated 12.09.2024, which is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below :
"1. In compliance of the Hon'ble Commission's direction issued during the hearing, Halqua Patwari and Tehsildar (Hauz Khas) were directed to search the revenue records pertains to information sought by applicant. Further, Halqua Patwari and Tehsildar (Hauz Khas) has submitted that the Revenue Record available with Patwari was again searched but records pertains to Fard Badar of Khasra no. 50/8 village Humyunpur, New Delhi was not found. An incomplete Fard Badar pertains to khasra no. 50/8 dated 13/02/2009 was found attached at the back side of Jamabandi of year 1947-48 of village Humayupur. The copy of same Fard Badar has been enclosed by Halqua Patwari along with report. The report of Halqua Patwari is annexed as Annexure-"A".
2. Further, during hearing before this Hon'ble Commission, the above mentioned incomplete Fard Badar (P-7) was shown to representative of applicant but applicant denied for the same. As such, as per Halqua Patwari report, the information sought by applicant i.e. certified copy of documents related to P-7 dated 16/03/2009 relating to Kh.No.50/8 village Humayunpur, New Delhi was not found in revenue records available with Halqua Patwari.
3. Based on the above facts, and circumstances report is being submitted before the Hon'ble Commission for kind consideration. Hon'ble Commission is assured by the undersigned that the orders / directions passed by this Hon'ble Commission shall be complied timely in future."
Decision:
Perusal of the documents submitted by the Noticee- Dr. Mukesh Kumar, SDM (Hauz Khas), reveals that in compliance to the previous direction of the Commission passed vide order 06.11.2023, the Respondent's office has issued two letters to the Appellant dated 17.11.2023 and 21.11.2023, for appearance and inspection of the concerned records in the office of the SDM (Hauz Khas) but the Appellant did not appear for inspection of the records.
Nonetheless, their office has made sincere efforts to locate the requisite information but the same is not available in their records and in order to Page 7 of 9 substantiate his statement, he placed on record a copy of Halqua Patwari report, according to which, the information sought by Appellant i.e. certified copy of documents related to P-7 dated 16.03.2009 relating to Kh.No.50/8 village Humayunpur, New Delhi, was not found in revenue records available with Halqua Patwari.
At this juncture, the Commission would like to counsel the Appellant that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. In view of the above discussion, the Commission accepts the reply/explanation of the Noticee.
In this case it has also transpired that the issue of the Appellant regarding reconstruction of the land records cannot be resolved under the provisions of the RTI Act and in case the Appellant apprehends that his file has been misplaced, he is at liberty to file a complaint before the concerned District Magistrate duly supported by the relevant documents.
Before parting with the case at hand, the Commission wishes to remark that such pertinent facts, as submitted during Show Cause proceedings by the Respondent, should be put on record before the Commission at the time of hearing in Second Appeal right at the outset so as to reduce the time, energy and efforts in adjudication on such matters.
The show cause notice is hereby dropped, and the matter stands disposed of accordingly.
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 Page 8 of 9 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the ADM-South, M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110068 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)