Shyamvir Singh vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 12 April, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shyamvir Singh vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 12 April, 2021

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                              के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:    CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/109222

 Shyamvir Singh                                           .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनतम
 PIO,
 Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Kapashera)
 (Government of NCT of Delhi), Kapashera,
 South-West District, Old Terminal Tax
 Building, Kapashera, NewDelhi-110037.

                                                          ...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   24-09-2018
  CPIO replied on                   :   03-10-2018
  First appeal filed on             :   26-10-2018
  First Appellate Authority order   :   15-11-2018
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   27-02-2019
  Date of Hearing                   :   12-04-2021
  Date of Decision                  :   12-04-2021


                 lwpuk vk;qDr               : Jh हीरालाल सामररया
               Information Commissioner :              Shri Heeralal Samariya

 Information sought

The Appellant sought information regarding seeking attested copies of mutation application submitted by Sh. Rajiv Sangwan/Sanjeev Sangwan and mutation sanction order and a latest copy of Khasra Girdwari and P-4 form of the land in question.

Page 1 of 5

PIO, SDM (Kapashera), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, furnished reply to the Appellant, vide letter dated 03-10-2018, stating that:

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26-10-2018.

The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2018 directed the PIO/SDM (Kapashera) to furnish the specific information to the appellant within stipulated time period.

PIO, O/o. Land Acquisition Collector, Distt. New Delhi, GNCTD, vide letter dated 06.07.2019, furnished updated reply as under:

' Page 2 of 5 Written submissions have been received from PIO, SDM (Najafgarh), vide letter dated 09.04.2021, as under:

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: (1) Mr. Manoj Rawat, Reptt of PIO, PA to SDM (Najafgarh), O/o SDM (Najafgarh) (2) Mr. R.K. Gupta, Reptt of PIO, Tehsildar, O/o DM (SW) The Respondent (1) submitted that information sought, with regard to para 7 of the instant RTI Application, is not available in the record room of O/o SDM (Najafgarh). Therefore, no information was provided to the Appellant. A copy of updated reply, vide letter dated 09.04.2021, was provided to the Appellant as well.

The Respondent (2) submitted that information sought, with regard to Para 1-6 & Para 8 of the instant RTI Application, although clarificatory in nature, was provided to the Appellant, vide letter dated 03-10-2018.

Page 3 of 5

The Appellant stated that the information sought, with regard to Para 7, would be available in the O/o SDM (Najafgarh) and was dissatisfied with the updated reply of Respondent (1). He furthermore stated that mutation proceedings have been completed and application for the change of name has also been processed. Therefore, he desires to seek an updated copy of mutation records/order, with regard to para 7, of the instant RTI Application.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides for the PIO to provide such information which means "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"

Further, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act enumerates that "right to information" means "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;.."

As much as the PIO has a statutory duty to respond to RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the RTI Applicant also must adhere to the same provisions while seeking information under the Act.

In view of aforesaid observations, it will suffice to say that the PIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act. However, as per his wisdom he has provided relevant information to the appellant, with regards to Para 1 to Para 6 of the instant RTI Application. Commission upholds the submission of the PIO. No further action lies.

Page 4 of 5

As regards with information sought in Para 7 of the instant RTI Application, Commission observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the reply provided by then PIO. He further alleges that relevant information has been deliberately withheld, whereas PIO claims that whatever information was available on record has been provided to the appellant and nothing is withheld. Therefore, Commission in order to resolve the said anomaly and in light of Appellant's vehement apprehension, directs the PIO (O/o SDM (Najafgarh)) to go through records once again and provide an updated reply to the Appellant. In case no records are available with the concerned Respondent Authority, then the PIO should file a relevant Affidavit to this effect stating that all available and relevant information sought the instant RTI Application has been provided to the appellant and no information was withheld from disclosure as per RTI Act. The affidavit should be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Commission also observes that appropriate and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant, with regard to Para 8 of the instant RTI Application. No further action lies in this regard.

The second appeal is disposed off with above mentioned directions.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) ू ना आयुक्त) Information Commissioner (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (रतम प्रकतश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission