Central Information Commission
Neha Jain vs Revenue Department on 20 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No.: CIC/REVDP/A/2023/610479
Neha Jain .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Department Revenue, HQ, 5,
Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines,
Delhi - 110054 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2024
Date of Decision : 19.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02-11-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 16-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24-02-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.11.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"1. Name of present SDM(HQ), Civil lines, Delhi who is entrusted with the responsibility of dealing e-stamp duty refund application and processing thereof along with his contact details and email id.
2. What is statutory/ legal timeline in processing e-stamp certificate refund application by Revenue Department, Delhi as mandated by any Act, Regulations, Rules, Notification, Circular etc. issued in this respect
3. How much time generally SDM(HQ), Civil lines, Delhi office take in processing e-stamp certificate refund application from the date of refund application?
4. How much e-stamp certificate refund application pending as on date in the office of SDM(HQ), Civil lines, Delhi and since when?
5. Provide the last 30 e-stamp certificate refund details processed by the office of SDM(HQ), Civil lines, Delhi along with refund date and date of corresponding refund application.
6. Name of the official who had disposed of complaint no. 2022125195 on Public Grievance Monitoring System portal on 01.11.2022 along with his contact details and email id.
7. Processing status of refund of e-stamp certificate no. IN- DL84037893607674U for which refund application was given on 07.04.2022 and estimated refund date."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 26.02.2024:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Shri Brijendra Kumar Shukla, ASO along with Shri Ajay, DEO present in person.Page 2 of 5
The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 28.02.2024:
"Nonetheless, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the PIO Shri Pramod Kumar, Collector Stamp/ SDM- I, Hqr for not only remaining absent but also for not signing the authority letter as it is signed by someone else. Moreover, despite direction of the Commissioner to the representative of the PIO, he did not upload a copy of Hon'ble High Court's summons/notice for which the PIO sought exemption for his presence in the hearing of the Commission. Such casual conduct of the PIO and their representative shows utter disregard towards the cause of the Citizens of India and related proceedings of the Commission under the RTI Act.
In view of the above the Commission directs, PIO Shri Pramod Kumar, Collector Stamp/ SDM- I, Hqr, is show caused as to why penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him. The PIO is required to submit his written explanation both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within four weeks from the date of receiving this order. The First Appellant Authority to ensure compliance of the direction."
Relevant Facts emerging during Show-Cause Hearing on 10.06.2024 Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Parmod Kumar, SDM (HQ) & PIO present in person.
Written explanation dated 03.04.2024 of Shri Parmod Kumar, SDM is taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"1. The undersigned is posted as SDM/PIO (HQ) in Revenue Department and looking after the General Administration Branch, Vigilance Branch, Stamps & Registration Branch, Head of Office of Revenue Department (HQ) and also Election related work.Page 3 of 5
2. The issue related to the instant matter i.e. refund of e-stamp certificate has already been resolved vide expenditure sanction order No. F.21/05/Refund/COS (HQ)/2022/60 dated 22/02/2023. (Copy enclosed) and the reply of RTI application was also provided to the appellant vide letter dated 11/08/2023.
3. There were some important/urgent court cases which were listed on 05/03/2024, 06/03/2024, 07/03/2024 and 12/03/2024. In one of the case personal appearance of Divisional Commissioner was sought by the Court.
Further, against the order dated 14/02/2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dr. Poornima Advani and Anr. v/s. GNCT of Delhi & Anr., the Department was decided to file an appeal against the order. The undersigned has not deliberately or intentionly absented in the hearing on 26/02/2024 as I was engaged to brief and discuss with the Counsel for filing the reply. (Copies of the same are enclosed)
4. Further, the Authority letter dated 26/02/2024 has been signed by the undersigned and the same was uploaded on the portal as directed by the Commission during the hearing."
Upon being queried by the Commission, the information as per the documents available on record has already been provided to the Appellant at initial stage.
Decision:
Perusal of the documents submitted by the Noticee- Shri Parmod Kumar explained that on the last date i.e. 26.02.2024, he was unable to attend the hearing due to some important/urgent court cases which were listed on 05/03/2024, 06/03/2024, 07/03/2024 and 12/03/2024 and in one of the case personal appearance of Divisional Commissioner was sought by the Court. Further, against the order dated 14/02/2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dr. Poornima Advani and Anr. v/s. GNCT of Delhi & Anr., the Department decided to file an appeal against the order for which Respondent went to brief the counsel. He submitted that his non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional in the hearing on 26/02/2024 as he was engaged to brief and discuss with the Counsel for filing the reply.
In view of the above discussion, the Commission accepts the reply/explanation of the Noticee. However, the Commission advises Shri Parmod Kumar to be Page 4 of 5 cautious in future and ensure his presence on future date of hearings to avoid attracting penal action.
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 during the first date of hearing itself in order 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.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)