Central Information Commission
Anil Yadav vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 13 February, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या /Second Appeal No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119654
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119656
Shri Anil Yadav ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Sub- Divisional Magistrate-(Kapashera) ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: None, Sh. R K Gupta
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2019
Date of Decision : 22.11.2019
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 30.01.2020
Date of Final Decision : 12.02.2020
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
119654 04.09.2017 13.11.2017 27.10.2017 08.12.2017
119656 04.09.2017 16.11.2017 08.12.2017 22.12.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119654 Appellant vide RTI application dated 04.09.2017 sought information on four points regarding agricultural land in the name of Appellant's late father. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Provide the map (sizra/site plan) of all agricultural land in the name at any point of time in PIO's record.
2. Provide the ROR related to Khata No. 179/175 and 63/2/1/2 which contains our legal right.
3. High Tension pole was established in last some years of above mentioned property. Whether any compensation was allotted to bhumidhar in this regard. If yes then who gave the compensation and how much amount was given.
4. Who was the beneficiary of above described in Point No. 3, provide his name and address?Page 1 of 5
PIO/SDM (Kapashera) vide letter dated 13.11.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 27.10.2017. FAA/ADM (SW) vide order dated 08.12.2017stated that question no. 1 is not sustainable, directed the PIO to provide information against point no. 2 and transfer the question No. 3 & 4 to PIO of LAC(SW) within one week. Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119656 Appellant vide RTI application dated 04.09.2017 sought information on six points regarding agricultural/residential/Kaymi land of late Shri Ghisa Ram r/o Pandwala Khurd who was his grandfather. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Provide the map (sizra/site plan) of all agricultural/residential/Kaymi land in the name of (related to late Sultan Singh and Late Shri Bohru, both real brothers S/o Ghisa Ram) at any point of time in PIO's record.
2. At which rate portion agriculture land was deducted for abadi/residence during previous consolidation in the decade 1950-60.
3. Total agriculture land deducted from joint account of late Shri Bohru& late Shri Sultan Singh. Total residence land provided with documents/map including kila numbers and area during consolidation of village as abadi.
4. Provide the ROR(Fard) related to Khata No. 44, 45 and 78 which contains our legal right.,
5. High Tension pole was established in last some years of above mentioned property. Whether any compensation was allotted to bhumidhar in this regard. If yes then who gave the compensation and how much amount was given.
6. Who was the beneficiary of above describe in point No. 5 provide his name and address.
PIO/SDM (Kapashera) vide letter dated 16.11.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 08.12.2017. FAA vide order dated 22.12.2017 stated as follows:-
"PIO/SDM(KH) is hereby instructed to transfer the RTI application for Q. No. 2 & 3 to PIO/Najafgarh and Q.No. 5& 6 to PIO/LAC(SW) within
02 days. Further PIO/NG and PIO/LAC(SW) are directed to provide appropriate information with regard to Q. No. 2&3 and Q. No. 5&6 respectively within 10 days".
In compliance with FAO, a reply was sent by the PIO/SDM, Najafgarh in the form of letter dated 13.03.2018 denying holding information against point No. 2 & 3 to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Page 2 of 5A written submission has been received from the PIO/SDM(HQ) vide letter dated 31.10.2019 stating that the matter relates to Kapashera Sub Division.
The Appellant alone is present in both cases while none present on behalf of respondents despite service of notice of hearing in advance. Appellant is clearly dissatisfied with non-compliance of the FAA's directions and non-receipt of information as to who is the recipient of compensation with respect to the acquisition of his ancestral land, particularly because the said land being an ancestral property, there are family disputes pending with respect to the same.
Decision Upon perusal of records and hearing averments of the Appellant, it is evident that the case has not been handled appropriately by the respondent nor information was furnished to the Appellant. Instead he has been made to run between offices of SDMs, Najafgarh and Kapashera, without being able to obtain the desired information. This is a gross miscarriage of justice and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering that the officers have been simply passing the buck on who is the actual custodian of information, it is found imperative that the FAA should have adjudicated the issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the SDM who is the actual custodian of information, in order to save time and effort on the part of the Appellant. In the light of the aforementioned facts, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the instant case should be remanded to the FAA/ADM(SW)-Shri M T Kom, who should adjudicate the case by granting opportunity of hearing to the Appellant in the presence of the concerned SDM/s and decide the case on merits. A copy of a reasoned, speaking order ensuring compliance of the previous FAA's order dated 21.12.2017 shall be submitted before the Commission by 20.12.2019.
In view of the absence and complete silence on the part of the SDM, Kapashera, Registry of this bench is directed to issue Show Cause Notice on the SDM, Kapashera - Sh. Nitin Jindal for causing deliberate obstruction of information, in contravention of the FAA's order and violating the provisions of the RTI Act. Response to the Show Cause Notice must be received atleast one week prior to the scheduled date of hearing.
Show Cause hearing: - 30.01.2020:-
A written submission has been received from Shri Sanjay Kumar, PIO/Department of Power vide letter dated 07.01.2020 in respect of file No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119654. The answering respondent is neither a necessary party nor any reply has been sought from him with respect to the RTI queries.
Records of the case reveal that Tehsildar, Kapashera had submitted a letter dated 21.11.2019 claiming to have provided necessary information and annexed some illegible documents therewith. The letter dated 21.11.2019 bears a stamp of receipt of the Commission dated 22.11.2019 on the date of hearing and hence could not be included during the last hearing. Even on perusal of the response, it is noted that the response is incomplete as such since the report dated 15.11.2019 mentioned therein as an annexure is not found on record and except the covering letter dated 21.11.2019, remaining documents are completely illegible.Page 3 of 5
No adjudication has been carried out by the FAA/ADM(SW)-Shri M T Kom.
Noticee is represented by Tehsildar - Sh. Rajender Kumar, who reiterates his contention as stated in CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119654.
Perusal of records further reveal that the Noticee/SDM, Kapashera - Sh. Nitin Jindal has submitted a reply dated 24.01.2020 to the Show Cause Notice, pointing out the following relevant facts:
i) the Noticee took charge as SDM, Kapashera only in the month of January 2019, while the RTI application and FAA's order relate to the year 2017;
ii) in compliance with the FAA's order, the then PIO had transferred the RTI application to the LAC Branch SW by letter dated 11.01.2018 since information sought at question no. 3&4 pertained to compensation and acquisition;
iii) LAC branch had responded to the appellant by reply dated 21.02.2018, informing the appellant that in the absence of Award no. no information can be provided;
iv) the Noticee learnt about the instant case only in November 2019, presumably upon receipt of the Commission's hearing notice dated 21.10.2019and transferred the queries number 3&4 to PIO/Dy. Secretary, Power Dept and to the PIO, Manager, Power Grid Corporation;
v) response dated 17.12.2019 had been sent by the Chief General Manager (PESM)/designated CPIO- Sh. R Nagpal providing information against the queries number 3 and 4 raised by the appellant in his appeal number CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/119654 furnishing the name of beneficiary and all other information as permissible under the RTI Act. Show Cause Decision: 12.02.2020 Upon perusal of records of the case, as discussed above, the Commission notes that the reply submitted by the Noticee-PIO/SDM, Kapashera- Sh. Nitin Jindal is adequate to demonstrate the action taken by the PIO to assist in dissemination of maximum information in response to the queries raised by the appellant. Though the earlier reply dated 21.11.2019 submitted by the Tehsildar-Kapashera- Sh. Rajender Kumar was incomplete and unacceptable, considering the clear and succinct response furnished by the Noticee- PIO/SDM, Kapashera, the Commission finds that adequate information from available records has now been made available to the appellant. However, considering the absence of the Noticee during hearing of Show Cause case, and deputing a Tehsildar - Sh. R K Gupta instead, the Commission wishes to remind the Noticee-PIO/SDM, Kapashera that Show Cause Notice is issued against a specific person, by his name and is not transferable The penal proceedings initiated against the Noticee-PIO/SDM, Kapashera is thus waived.
Before parting with the case at hand, the Commission regrets to note the complete inaction and non involvement of the FAA-Sh. M T Kom in adjudication of the case, in violation of specific directions of the Commission. It Page 4 of 5 is not only disappointing to note such conduct but also undesirable and will hopefully not be repeated in future.
The instant case is directed to be closed in view of the aforementioned discussion.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5