Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 23 October, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSIDC/A/2023/637674-UM
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited,
Senior Manager Vig. &Pio, Rti Cell, (Vigilance Division),
Gnctd, Plot No. -74A, Old Mcd Property Tax Building,
Lajpat Nagar, Block, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi -110024
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.10.2023
Date of Decision : 23.10.2023
Date of RTI application 17.03.2022
CPIO's response 21.03.2022
Date of the First Appeal 25.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 05.07.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.08.2023
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 41. Please provide inspection of all the files pertaining to the above enquiry and thereafter identified copies therefrom of the notings as well as all the documents contained in the file (s) as per records
2. Please provide present status of the enquiry as per records
3. If the complaint has been closed, please provide copy of the closure report along with all annexures as per records
4. Since the CVC guidelines and numerous emails therefrom stipulated a maximum time of 3 months to conclude the enquiries, please provide the copy of the reasons recorded by the EO to exceed the stipulated time of 3 months as per records
5. As specifically brought to your notice during the hearing and the documents submitted therein, please provide the relevant extract from the notings / report / document / evidence / statement (s) or any such (to be read as ejusdem generis) shedding explanations / arguments / clarifications or any such on the following:
a. Why was the request obtained from Pawan Kumar Gupta despite specific instructions from LC that the request should come from Original allottee b. Why did the specimen signature sheet submitted on 25.02.2009 carry notary attestation dated 12.03.2009 c. Why was the incorrect name of the father of Original allottee in the specimen signature sheet ignored by the officials d. Why did the DM(Rec) ignore the directions of the LC to call the transfer related documents from Original Allottee and issued letter only to Pawan Kumar Gupta e. Why was the transfer intimation letter not sent to the original allottee by Post despite knowledge regarding the changed address of the allottee f. Why did the fact that the Allottee applied for conveyance on his own favor in 2003 and followed it up even till 2005 not raise suspicion on the averment of the transferee regarding a family settlement dating back to 1998.
The CPIO, Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited,vide letter dated 21.03.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 05.07.2022 directed the PIO to provide the relevant information to the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
Page 2 of 4HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta and Mr. Ativ Gupta attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Vikas Gupta S.M and Mr. Zaidi LA, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding inspection of all the files pertaining to the matter of illegal mutation and conveyance of Shed No. 47, Okhla Industrial Complex, Phase 1, New Delhi wherein the undersigned applicant was called for hearing vide enclosed letter dated 08.09.2022 and related issues. He submitted that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 13.07.2023, a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. He said that the matter is pending before the hon'ble court and therefore no information could be furnished. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said. The Appellant said that he wants to inspect the present status of the inquiry and file note/record after the year of 2022 w.r.t above said property.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide an updated and concise revised reply to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.Page 3 of 4
The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598 / [email protected]
द्वदनांक / Date: 23.10.2023
Page 4 of 4