Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Hema D Souza vs Mcd on 1 March, 2017

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Room No.415,4th Floor,
                         Block IV, Old JNU CamPus,
                             New Delhi -Lt0 067.
                            Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                                     Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008 I 000951217 4
                                                            Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00095

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal


Appellant                                     Hema D'Souza,
                                              82, Dector-2, Pocket 1, Dwarka,
                                              Phase-I, New Delhi-1 10075.

Respondent                                    SDM & PIO,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Alipur, Narala Zone, New Delhi-110036.


RTI application filed on                      2310512008
PIO replied                                   not replied.
First appeal filed on                         t7/0712008
First Appellate Authority order               22t0812008
Second Appeal filed on                        201t012a08

The appellant had asked in RTI application for copy of the conveyance deed pertaining to property, No. CP-187, Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110088. document registered on 27th September 2000, in the name my late Father, Shri Amrit Lal Mehta, S/o Late Shri Lachhman Dass Mehta. In context to the aforementioned. Give information above records, sale/transfer/gifUmutation pending /under consideration (Process) name of any other party/persons, other than recorded owner, late Shri Amrit Lal Mehta?

Detail of information required:-

A. Whether the abovementioned are records available is in your office? B. Whether there has been any application for sale/transfer/gifl/mutation pending/under consideration (process) and or executed, for the entire captioned property or a portion/floor etc; in the name of any other partylpersons, other than recorded owner, late Shri Amrit Lal Mehta?
C. Has the property been subdivided?
D. lf yes, please provide complete details of applicant and the status of the application with dates.
E. Has the property been gifted lmtfiatedltransferred/registered in the name of any other person(s); including any person(s) alleging to be the heir(s)iClass I heir (s) of deceased Shri Amrit Lal Mehta?
F. If yes, please provide complete details, with documents and dates. G. Inspection of relevant files and records/documents pertaining to the captioned property.
H. Certified copies of documents on inspection of relevant files and records/documents. I. In case the desired information does not come under your jurisdiction, the query/queries, as mandated under the RTI Act, be transferred to concerned CPIO, as thecasemaybe;u/s6{3(i)}oftheRTlAct,2005,withintheprescribedtimelimit' under due intimation to appellant' The PIO rePlied.
Not replied The First Appellate Authority ordered' ,.On perusat oir""o.Jr, it is found that no reply fumished by PIO' Let the suitable reply be given to t-ht appellant within 15 working days"' Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were Present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent that-no information was supplied to the From the papers submitted in the appeal it appears authority' upp.ffun &e, ut". the categorical oider of the First appellate Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
ir,, ."'"fu'r.ieei"r.;;; report will 20 March' 2009 bv' be sent to the appellant before the complete' required information by the The issue before the Commission is of not supplying PIO within 30 days as required by the law' It also appears that the first appeilate authority's orders l*t.'ol?Tl"tll.,',":"i1n ;fiir:;ffi;;rtr#;;i; #;;;", it i' apparent thar thg pro is suilrv or not1,,:--
turnishing 7 bv notreplving within "';+Lin ililhHffi"tdi,ir,. ti." ",;"?ir**:i!a;jryy1ryrirry'*::d,l:gz,*:*':,::i':
specified uno.i-ruulrection (1) of section itTJJ:]Tl#'ffi ;ilffi .-l^-. ^f hic ilr'# :i#'" ;#;ffi;';;;*ur; @9t thai i:",':l^g :*::l::,Tfl arso be ilfifi". il;il pt5is bt given' 111:
                                         clearly ordered                ,h.^
                 ffi"iiut" artnority has penal               ^rf:y,,q:n,,t:
                                               provisions of Section 20 (1)   '
 iiupp"u6 that the     actionsattraitthe
                                         'nil,l1,
he is directed give his reasons to the A showcause notice is being issued ,o and be levied on him' Commission to show.urr. *rrJy penalty should not should not be imposed on him He give his written submissions showing cause why^ptl3lty will as mandated under section 20 (1) before 3O"March, zooq. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant' This decision is announced in open chamber' Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties' Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 4th March 2009 (Inanycorrespondenceonthisdecisionrmentionedthecompletedecisionnumber')