Central Information Commission
Mrs. Anju Choraria vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 8 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002857/10361
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002857
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Anju Choraria
H. No. - 863, 6th Floor,
HIG, Veer CGHS Ltd.
Plot No. 28,
Sector 13, Rohini
Delhi-110085
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Assessor and Collector Municipal Corporation of Delhi Assessment and Collection Department Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi-110085 RTI application filed on : 29/06/2010 PIO replied : 28/07/2010 First appeal filed on : 04/08/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 08/10/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 10/11/2010 Hearing held on : 08/12/2010 The Appellant has sought information regarding the application made for the mutation of the plot. S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. What is the time limit for mutation of There is no provision of the time limit in the DMC Act.
a property as per the provisions of the However, as per the departmental instructions, if the MCD Act? required documents are complete in all respects and all the dues are cleared, mutation may be allowed within 15 days and in case of deficiency, mutation may be allowed within 15 days after clearing the deficiency by the Applicant.
2. Reasons for the delay in disposing off The information sought does not cover u/s 2(f) of the the Appellant's aforesaid application. RTI Act. It is basically a grievance. However, as per the record the Appellant applied for mutation on 12/06/2009, the same was processed immediately, thereafter a deficiency letter No. Tax/RZ/2009/536 dated 10/08/2009 was sent requesting the applicant to clear all dues and show the original documents within 10 days. Since no response was received from the Appellant, the case was filed.
3. Action taken so far on the Appellant's Same as above.
aforesaid application.
4. Name of the official/officers causing Same as above.
delay in processing the Appellant's application.
5. Action taken against those Same as above.
official/officers causing delay in
processing the Appellant's
application.
6. Name of the competent authority Dy. A&C/JLA&C of the Zone.
before whom the grievance can be
redressed.
7. Name, address and telephone no. (s) The required information had been provided.
Of the First Appellate Authority.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO and no-action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. The Appellant has sent a letter to the Commission which has been received on 19/11/2010 stating that she has received all the information satisfactorily and wishes to withdraw the appeal.
Decision:
The Appeal is withdrawn.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 08 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IN)