Central Information Commission
Pardeep Bajaj vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 29 October, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DPTAT/A/2017/157719
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/183443
Shri Pradeep Bajaj ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
1. PIO, AVATO/Asst. Commissioner, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Dept. of Trade & Taxes, IP Bhawan
New Delhi-110002
2. PIO, SDM (Delhi Cantt.) Delhi Cantonment
Board, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011
Through: Shri Devender Shokeen - PIO
3. Shri Balkar Singh - Third Party
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2019
Date of Decision ( interim) : 27.09.2019
Date of 2nd Hearing : 16.10.2019
Date of Final Decision : 28.10.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
157719 31.01.2017 30.03.2017 12.04.2017 21.06.2017
183443 30.05.2017 05.09.2017*(after 12.07.2017 23.08.2017
filing of the first
Appeal)
CIC/DPTAT/A/2017/157719
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/183443
The appeals were heard on 22.05.2019. The Commission desires to have some
clarification on the matter from the parties. Accordingly, the appeals are
rescheduled for further hearing on 16.10.2019 at 1.15 PM.
Page 1 of 5
Written submission:-
1. A written submission dated 22.05.2019 has been received from the Shri
Balkar Singh, third party in respect of File No. CIC/DPTAT/A/2017/157719.
2. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter
dated 26.06.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/183443.
CIC/DPTAT/A/2017/157719
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.1.2017, seeking information on
nineteen points regarding TIN No. 07556923367. He sought to know whether it
is correct that the TIN No. 07556923367, was allotted in the name of
firm/company, i.e. M/s. BELLA CASA INTERIOR?, is it correct that the TIN No.
07556923367, was allotted in the name of the above said firm/company, either
as per above said Sr. No. 1&2, situated at C-11/3, MANSAROVAR GARDEN-
110005, whether the above said firm/company either as per Sr. No. 1&2, has
been registered as Proprietorship or Partnership firm/company in your record?
If the answer is a proprietorship firm (Sr. No. 5), then do provide his/her full
name with the correct spellings of the individual name and other related
information.
PIO/AVATO/Asst. Commissioner (W-102), vide letter dated 30.03.2017
furnished the reply regarding point no. 1 to 4 & 13 to 14 stating that
information sought by the appellant is available in public domain and
regarding points no. 5 to 11 & 14 to 19 the PIO has expressed the inability to
provide the sought information quoting Section 98 of the DVAT Act, 2004.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal
dated 12.04.2017. FAA vide order dated 21.06.2017 directed the PIO to provide
all information available in records or public domain to the appellant within 10
days.
In compliance with FAO, PIO/AVATO(W-102) vide letter dated 28.06.2017
furnished the information on point nos. 1 to 4 to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing: 16.10.2019
All the relevant parties are present for hearing and reiterate from their
respective contentions, as made in their written submissions noted above.
Respondent has submitted a written note which is a reiteration of the earlier
submission dated 21.05.2019, submitted earlier whereby denial of information
has been substantiated citing Section 98 of the DVAT Act, relying on two
decisions: i) Delhi High Court decision dated 07.03.2012 in LPA No. 190/2012
and ii) CIC decision dated 29.11.2011 in case no. CIC/AD/C/2011/001410.
Page 2 of 5
Respondent states that the Section 98 is in line with the Section 8 (1)(d) of the
RTI Act.
The third party in this case is the owner of the premises about which questions
have been raised by the appellant. The third party viz. Shri Balkar Singh has
submitted the following relevant points, to be considered:
"....... 1. That the applicant namely Pradeep Bajaj was the tenant in the
premises bearing No. A-45, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi
in area admeasuring 600Sq. feet approx., the same was being
owned by wife of undersigned.
2. That eviction orders have already been passed against the
applicant from the competent court of Shri Vishal Gogne, the then
Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka Court, New Delhi vide its judgment and
decree dated 25.11.2014. Whereupon an appeal was preferred by
the appellant, the same is pending before the Court of Shri
Ravinder Bedi, ADJ, Patiala House Courts, Delhi.
3. That after the eviction orders have been passed against the
applicant, the applicant is running pillar to post in creating troubles
on the one pretext or the other in the life of undersigned as well as
their family members. The applicant has left no stone unturned to
meet his nefarious designs and for the very purpose is using Right
to Information Act, 2005 to gather the personal information
pertaining to the undersigned and their family members under RTI
Act, 2005 to settle his personal scores.
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
9. That the applicant is hell bent in getting personal information of the
undersigned as well as their family members to create nuisance
and the following properties owned by them:-
a. A-45, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi.
b. A-49, Maya Puri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi.
c. C-13, Mansarovar Garden, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
d. C-11, Mansarovar Garden, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi...."
Shri Balkar Singh, the respondent third party has further informed the
Commission that the appellant has been filing cases even against the Judicial
officers for not deciding the cases in his favour. He further stated that an
employee of his had also been attacked by the appellant which resulted in the
filing of an FIR, which is pending adjudication. Another FIR has also been
registered against the appellant for committing cheating and forgery of rent
receipts. He has further stated that the appellant has been making constant
threats and demanding illegal money under the garb of and misusing the RTI
Act. The appellant has been filing numerous complaints against the third party
and even the Government authorities to settle his personal score.
Appellant points out that response of PIO was delayed beyond 30 days period,
as stipulated under the RTI Act. He emphasizes on being provided with certified
Page 3 of 5
copy of the letter dated 21.06.2017 which has already been sent to him in
compliance of the FAA's order. Appellant has also raised objection about denial
of information claiming it relates to third party, without following the procedure
laid out under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon hearing the arguments and counter arguments of the parties, it is noted
that the Respondent/PIO-AVATO(W-102) had replied and even complied with
the order of the FAA, as admitted by the appellant. The information sought by
the appellant is already available on the website as admitted by the appellant
but he has filed the case and averred during hearing that he emphasises on
obtaining a certified copy of the information already provided to him.
Considering that information is available already on the official website of the
respondent, no further certification of the same is found necessary.
Furthermore, in so far as objection of the appellant about denial of information
without following the procedure laid out under Section 11 of the RTI Act, is
concerned, the Commission finds that the same is unsustainable, particularly
in view of the presence of the third party and considering that written
submissions of third party have also been placed on record.
Since no counter arguments have been placed about the provision of the
Section 98 of the DVAT Act, the Commission finds it unnecessary to discuss
the same further.
The instant case is thus dismissed being devoid of merits.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/183443
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 30.05.2017 seeking information on four points; he sought to know has any action been initiated/taken on the complaint under reference no. PB/2016-17/513 dated 03.03.2017 which was submitted at your zone, New Delhi-110011 on 03.03.2017, photocopy of the first page of the said complaint enclosed herewith as per Annex A (page no. 3) for your ready reference, provide the name/s and designation/s of concerned official/s who/have been entrusted with the duty of taking the necessary action on the complaint, in question and other related information. The PIO/SDM(Delhi Cantt) vide letter dated 05.09.2017 furnished the information on point no. 1 and informed the appellant on point no. 2 to 4 that information does not arise in view of the reply at 1 above. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.07.2017. FAA vide order dated 23.08.2017 directed the PIO to provide all the information within 10 days as available on records under the provision of RTI Act, 2005, PIO is also directed to ensure that the information is supplied to the appellant within the stipulated time in all RTI applications in future.Page 4 of 5
Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
All the relevant parties are present for hearing and reiterate from their respective contentions, as made in their written submissions. Though the appellant admits that reply was provided by the respondent, he alleges that the PIO's reply is incorrect and is ridden with falsehood.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records, it is noted that the respondent has duly informed the appellant vide PIO's reply itself that the allegation of evasion of stamp duty, cast by the appellant is found to be devoid of merit or any substantial basis. It has further been informed that a document/Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed once endorsed by the Collector of Stamps under Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the same shall be duly stamped and not chargeable with duty. Such an instrument is acted upon and registered as duly stamped. No stamp objection can be entertained with respect to such a document even in any court of law after endorsement by the Collector of Stamps.
The information as available has already been provided by the respondent, but the appellant is still dissatisfied. Moreover, the FAA had given certain directions to the PIO vide order dated 23.08.2017, which do not appear to have been complied with by the PIO. Accordingly, in the larger interest, the instant matter is remanded to the FAA to adjudicate the matter afresh and pass a reasoned speaking order, after hearing both parties. A copy of the order passed by the FAA shall be submitted before the Commission by 20.11.2019.
The appeals are thus disposed off with these directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5