Central Information Commission
Mr.Gian Chand Jain vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 18 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000659/12408
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000659
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Gian Chand Jain
9/3636, Dharmapura, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-31.
Respondent : Mr. Mahipal Singh
PIO & Dy. A&C Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assessment & Collection Department Shahdara (South) Zone, MCD Office, 18 Block, Gita Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-110031.
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2010 PIO replied : 01/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 09/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 02/02/2011 Second Appeal received on : 26/02/2011
RTI is regarding the information of payment paid by the property 9/3636, Dharmapura extension, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -31 in year 2009-10:
Sl. Information Sought PIO Replied
1. Isn't its necessary that your department must check it out that the Notices u/s 138 issued against property tax is already has been paid before issuing the the bounced cheque. notice u/5/138 by the department?
2. Did the above rule had followed before issuing the notice? If no, Notice u/s 138 issued as per why? Provide the name / designation of the officer, who is Negotiable Instrument Act. responsible to not following the rule.
3. Why the cheques, has not been issued to appellant till today, You may obtain the bounced which were used to paid the property tax has been sent back cheque which was received by the department? Provide the report and specify the from the bank by this office reason. Please provide the name and designation of the in original on filing a responsible officer. separate request to this office.
4. Please provide all the facts / evidence under which the AA&C of As per the set language in concerned department has been blamed the appellant by accordance to N.I.A. was saying "that you had thought to issue the cheque to M.C.D. issued to you and no such but had no intention to get the same honored/ encashed" on word in-corporated in the the letter issued dated 21-12-09 letter beyond the law.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied.
Order of the FAA:
"Shri Jain attended the hearing on 20/01/2011 and stated that the letter of the PIO dated 01/12/2010 is not in the right spirit, which is really hurting the feelings of a senior citizen that when he has cleared the dues, which probably could not be cleared on any account, but the language used by the AA&C in the notice is not On consonance with the office procedure.
On behalf of the PlO, the concerned AA&C attended the hearing and stated that the required information has been provided to the app1icant. As regards the notice issued to the applicant, the same is issued is per the practice.
I have gone though the application of Shri Jain and the reply/information provided by the PlO. The reply given by the PIO is not satisfactory and, therefore, he is directed to go through each and every point of the applicant and be replied properly."
Information provided by PIO on 08/02/2011 in pursuance of the FAA order:
1. 'There is separate procedure for issuance of notice u/s 138 of negotiable Instrument Act.
2. As above.
3. You may obtained the bounce cheque in original with the written request.
4. The notice Was issued in the set Performa which was duly approved by the MCD & it is also stated that the cheque was bounced on account of insufficient fund, which is self explanatory evidence in respect of the intention of the issuing person which was supposed to be in cashed & the as per the policy of the bank, charges for dishonored cheque had been levied.
5. It is pertinent to mention that explanation, opinion, query (EJS) are not in ambit of RTI Act but the orders of the First Appellate Authority is being honored.
6. However, you are requested to attend the office of the under-signed in Room No-3, Geeta Colony Block-18. Delhi-31 at.3:O0 pm on 14.02.2011 so that the issue may be resolved to avoid any inconvenience in future..
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Asstt. Director of Education (Act)/PIO has satisfactory replied the question No. 1 and the rest questions have been forwarded to all DDE's/PIO's vide their letter No. DE-15/Act/RTL/Id- 4232/2009/6655 dated 15/11/10. The reply received from the DDE's of the District was unsatisfactory of Question No. 2 to 4. Therefore, I filed an appeal on 13/12/10.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Gian Chand Jain;
Respondent : Mr. Mahipal Singh, PIO & Dy. A&C;
The Respondent has given the information available as per records. The Appellant has framed certain queries in which he has sought information about whether the department should not take actions in a particular manner. The PIO has provided the information available as per records connected with this and is not expected to give his own findings or opinions in the matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided. 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 18 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)