Central Information Commission
Rajaraman V vs Ut Of Puducherry on 14 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTPON/A/2023/160933
Rajaraman V .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o Sub Registrar, Kamaraj
Salai, Sakthi Nagar, Saram,
Puducherry - 605013 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08-02-2024
Date of Decision : 12-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24-08-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 03-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21-12-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.08.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. Please to produce the Order copy of the Hon'ble Chennai High court, regarding the conversion of Agriculture land into Layouts at Bahour Sub-Registration office, Puducherry to an extend of 1800, 1200, 1000, 900, 800, 600.
2. Give information regarding which all are the government departments permission should be seeked for conversion of the agriculture land into Layouts.
3. Issue the rules and regulation regarding, in-case of converting the agriculture land into Layouts, then the roads in the layouts should be handed over to the Municipality and Commune Panchayat.
4. Give details of the Layouts that are registered before the Bahour Sub-Registration office after 30.01.2017, the Layouts that which have obtained permission and license from Puducherry Planning Department, Town and country planning, Survey and disaster Management and District Registrar, Puducherry & the Layouts that which have obtained not obtained permission.
5. Give details of the registered sale documents that are registered before the Bahour Sub-Registration office after 30.01.2017, the plots which are in Kuzhies like 1 Kuzhie,
2 Kuzhie, 3 Kuzhie, 4 Kuzhie and also registered in Centaire like 1 Centaire, 2 Centaire, 3 Centaire, 4 Centaire, without exhibiting the Plot Numbers.
6. Give details of the registered sale documents that are registered before the Bahour Sub-Registration office before 30.01.2017, the plots which have obtained individual approval after 30.01.2017 and registered after 30.01.2017.
7. Give details of the registered sale documents that are registered before the Bahour Sub-Registration office after 30.01.2017, the plots which have not obtained individual approval. What is the action taken against the registering authority and Document Writer.
8. Give details of the registered Layout that are registered before the Bahour Sub- Registration office that was converted from agriculture land to Layout out and sold in Kuzhies.
9. Give details of the layout and plots registered against the law of conversion from agriculture, and which department had to take action against them and details of the action against them "
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.2
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Rajaraman V. along with his representative Mr. Arul Khosh, Advocate, attended the hearing.
Respondent: Absent.
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided any reply qua the instant RTI Application till date.
The Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant has not received any reply from the Respondent. The Commission further observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is voluminous in nature which requires collection and collation and directing the Respondent to provide the said information would attract section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Hence, the Commission deems it fit to direct the present CPIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his representative to inspect the relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant free of cost up to 25 pages, and beyond those, prescribed fees shall be charged as per the RTI Rules, 2012. The above said directions should be complied with, by the CPIO within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report of the same be duly sent to the Commission. The Commission further directs the present CPIO that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes that the Respondent has not appeared before the Commission and in fact has not intimated the Commission regarding the reason for his/her absence, as such, conduct of the 3 Respondent is viewed adversely and accordingly, the Respondent is cautioned on this count.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 12-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 4