Central Information Commission
Shri Zameer Ahmed Jumlana vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Mcd) ... on 22 September, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00632 dated 25-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Zameer Ahmed Jumlana
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Sadar
FACTS
By an application of 3-12-06 assigned ID No. 314, Shri Zameer Ahmed Jumlana of Teliwara, Delhi applied to the PIO, O/o Dy. Commissioner, SP Zone seeking the following information:
"I sought subdivision/ mutation of Property No. 1093-94, Mohalla Kishan Gang, Teliwara Delhi on 18.10.06 but no response received what are the action taken in this matter."
To this he received a response on 27-12-06 attaching a report from AZI, SP Zone with the following information:
"In this regard, it is reported that the applicant has filed an application for mutation/ sub-division in respect of above said property in dak on 18.10.06. After thoroughly examined the documents filed by the applicant, it was found that this is not a fit case of mutation and objection letter bearing No. Tax/ Dy.A&C/SPZ/2006/639 dated 7.12.2006 was sent to applicant by Speed Post on 9.12.2006 with the request that he may attend the office of the Dy. Assessor & Collector on any working day within 10 days of the issue of this letter with original documents for verification etc but no one is turned on in these days of limit. However copy of the letter is enclosed herewith for ready reference.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter, it is informed that without proper documents, at this stage mutation/ sub-division in this matter is not possible."
Pleading that he had received false and misleading information Shri Jumlana moved his first appeal on 15-1-07 before Addl. Commissioner (G) MCD specifically objecting to the statement of PIO that "no one is turned on these days" as follows:
"Thus false, misleading and incomplete information coupled with non-availability/ non traceability of assessment file makes strong case for disciplinary action and penalties against the authority.1
No remedial measure were initiated even after the representation dated 7.1.07 drawing attention of authority towards said false, misleading and incomplete information."
In his order of 25-1-07, however, Addl. Commissioner (G&S) CSD Shri H.B. Sharma held as follows:
"I have considered the appeal. As the initial application does not categorically ask for any information, no information can be given and whatever information has been supplied is more than enough."
Appellant has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"(a) The 1st Appellate Authority withhold the Appeal for more than forty five days, therefore penalty imposed upon him as per provision Right to Information Act.
(b) The PIO may kindly penalized for providing false, misleading information.
(c ) That PIO may kindly be directed mutate/ subdivide the property No. 1093-94 Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Teliwara Delhi, as per request dated 18.10.06."
In response to our appeal notice we received a detailed response from DC (SPZ) dated 19-9-08 in which Asstt. Assessor & Collector, SP Zone has submitted as follows:
"In this matter the applicant Mr. Zameer Ahmad Zumlana (sic) has forced the department under the shelter of Right to Information Act 2005 to allow mutation of property No. 1093-94, Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Teliwara, Delhi in his favour. Actually he is misusing this Act and directed the officers and officials of the department to act on his wish or will. He want mutation/ sub- division of the property under reference without fulfils the essential requirements for the purpose. As per record, property No. 1093, Mohall Kishan Ganj, Teliwara stands in the name of Shri Mohd. Ishaq who is grand father of applicant and property no. 1094, Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Teliwara earlier stands in the name of Mohd. Illiyas and further mutated and sub-divided in the joint names of his three sons on the basis of registered Sale Deed. The applicant Shri Zameer Ahmad Zumlana stands no where in the legal heirs as per title documents available on the record. Ample opportunities have already been granted to Shri Zameer Ahmad Zumlana to establish his entitlement as owner of the premises under reference and the department every time desires the title document in his favour. But till date he has 2 failed to provide the same resulting his claim was rejected by the department on merits.
Keeping in view the facts narrated above, it is crystal clear that the department having no fault and there is no delay on the part of PIOs/1st Appellate Authority and the claim of Shri Zameer Ahmad Jumlana has rightly rejected on account of merits of the matter."
The appeal was heard on 22-9-2008. Following are present.
Appellants Shri Zameer Ahmed Jumlana.
Respondents Shri Shiv Kumar, AA&C. Shri Ram Kishan, UDC.
Appellant Shri Jumlana spent considerable time expanding on his argument how information supplied by CPIO was false and misleading; because it stated that he did not attend the office when in fact he did. However, he admitted that the thrust of his appeal was with regard to the manner in which his first appeal was summarily dealt with by the 1st Appellate Authority, Addl. Commissioner (G&S) CSD. In this connection he submitted that although the order in first appeal is dated 25-1-07, he received this on 4- 3-07 after two reminders addressed to Addl. Commissioner (G) dated 19-2- 07 and 2-3-07. The 1st appellate authority has not taken into account his plea that the information supplied was false and misleading, although, he has submitted proof of the fact that he did attend the office of the Dy. Assessor & Collector on which date he submitted the documents sought that were duly acknowledged.
DECISION NOTICE First Appellate Authority Shri H.B. Sharma Addl. Commissioner (G&S) CSD is clearly mistaken in arriving at the decision that the initial application did not categorically ask for any information. The information sought quite clearly is "what are the actions taken in this matter" i.e. on his request for mutation Therefore, coming to the conclusion to whatever information has been supplied is more than enough, is not a satisfactory conclusion.
3However, having said that we find that the specific information sought in the initial application has, in fact, been supplied by the PIO. The plea taken and so closely argued by appellant Shri Jumlana in the hearing of the second appeal, that the information supplied is false and misleading is not a plea that he himself has taken in his prayer before us wherein he has asked this Commission to direct the department to execute a mutation in his favour, something which is clearly beyond our jurisdiction. Respondents, on the other hand, are unable to answer the questions raised by appellant in his second appeal alleging that the order of the 1st Appellate Authority was backdated and, therefore, a fraud on the RTI Act. This is a serious accusation. Shri H.B. Sharma, Addl. Commissioner (G&S) CSD will, therefore, submit to us within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice the proof of dispatch of the order of 25-1-07, failing which this Commission will consider further necessary steps in this matter in terms of Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 22-9-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 22-9-2008 4