Central Information Commission
Ms. Shashi Bala vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 22 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00026/SG/0681
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00026/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Shashi Bala,
2466 (3rd Floor), Bazar Sita Ram,
Delhi-110006.
Respondent 1 : Dy. Assessor & Collector,
City Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 12/03/2007 PIO replied : 11/04/2007 First appeal filed on : 03/05/2007 First Appellate Authority order : 07/05/2007 Second Appeal filed on : 10/03/2008 Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an application seeking information regarding the cancellation of mutation in respect of property no. 2058/VIII & 2466/IX Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006.
The PIO Reply:
The PIO had replied that the mutation cases is pending in the Civil Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi and the decision on mutation will be taken as per orders received from the Court.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
In the original application, the Appellant has not asked for any specific information. The Appellant has used the printed format in which against the item 'Particular of information required', it is mentioned "Cancellation of Mutation in respect of Property". Nothing has been mentioned under the item 'Details of information required' and 'Period for which the information is asked for', from the plain reading of the application nothing can be concluded as to what information the Appellant wants from the PIO. Still the PIO has attempted to supply some information which is appealed against. "In this appeal detailed history of the case is made out which goes beyond the scope of original application. In case the Appellant wants some information, she should be specific and category regarding the information being required by her which should constitute a material already in existence in the Municipal record. There is no substance in the appeal and the same is rejected."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Ms. Shashi Bala, Respondent: Mr. Jagdeep Chiller, PIO The respondent points out that the original RTI application seeks no information but only states that a mutation has cancelled. This is not seeking for any information but is perhaps stating a grievance. The First appellate authority has also recorded this. Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 22nd December, 2008 (Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Sum)