Central Information Commission
Mr.Lal Chand vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 January, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003398SA
(Lal Chand Vs. Dept. of Revenue, GNCTD)
7 January, 2014
Appellant : Shri Lal Chand
Respondent : Department of Revenue
Date of hearing : 7.1.2014
Date of decision : 7.1.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Section : Sections 3, 20 of RTI Act
Result : Appeal allowed/disposed of with directions
Headnote:
If the information sought is considered to be capable of establishing innocence
of accused in a criminal case, that makes the right to such information much
stronger and the Public Authority has a duty to furnish such information to its
former employee.
FACTS
Heard today dated 7.1.14. Appellant present. The Public Authority is represented by Shri Rajkumar, Tehsildar.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.7.12 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information on eight points regarding mutation of certain land. On not receiving any reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dt.5.8.12 with the Appellate Authority. The CPIO replied on 4.9.12. The information sought and the reply furnished are given below:
S.No. Information Sought Reply provided 1 What is the relation of Shri Shivraj, S/o As per records, Shri
Shri Khem Singh to mutation to 22.12.04 Shivraj is not the owner and whether according to the mutation, he is the owner of the land 2 Whether Shri Shivraj gave any application No application is available for mutation. If yes, give a copy on record 3 Whether the mutation had been Information sought is not implemented in Revenue Record. available Whether any letter in this regard has been issued. If so, a copy to be provided 4 Whether the mutation is not according to Photocopy is attached law and whether CVC has done any enquiry. If so, furnish the detailed reasons 5 Whether any enquiry has been conducted Information sought is not on wrong mutation. If no reasons for the available same 6 According to mutation, who is the owner Photocopy attached 7 Copy of the Khasra No. for which mutation Photocopy attached has taken place on 22.12.04 8 Name of the officer who has given wrong Information sought is not notary. What action has been taken. If so, available. what is the reason.
The Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 24.9.12 asked the Appellant to attach the necessary documents. Being aggrieved by the response of the CPIO except on point 7, the Appellant approached the Commission vide his second appeal dt.10.10.12.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that nine years ago, a false case was foisted against him and he was suspended in an anti corruption case. Later the appellant was reinstated and then retired in 2009. However, he complained that his terminal benefits were not given because of pendency of this case against him. Appellant explained that it was a false allegation that he had demanded money for implementing the mutation order issued by SDM on 12.12.2004. He added that impossibility of implementing the mutation order is evident by the fact that the same could not be implemented by any officer till today. He further added that information about nonimplementation of direction of the court by others also to effect mutation would prove his innocence in anti corruption case. He has even attributed mala fide motive ofto the Respondent (not the officer who represented Public Authority in this case) in refusing the information, providing wrong information, and for supplying information after delay of 48 days. He sought action against PIO & FAA and requested for furnishing proper and correct information.
The Respondent submitted that he had joined recently and most of his colleagues are also fresh to this job and hence he is not in a position to trace the record of the RTI application given by the Appellant. As requested the Appellant supplied the same to the Respondent in the presence of the undersigned. The Respondent assured the Commission that he would make sincere attempt to collect the information from his office and furnish the same within two weeks of receipt of the order.
4. The Commission after hearing the submissions made, is of the opinion that disclosure of this information has a potential to prove the innocence of the Appellant who is a former Tehsildar. It is proper and reasonable to disclose the information unless the same falls under any of the exempted category. Especially when the appellant required having this information to get relief in criminal allegations, it is the duty of PIO to provide it unless any legal provision bars it. If the information sought is considered to be capable of establishing innocence of accused in a criminal case, that makes the right to such information much stronger and the Public Authority has a duty to furnish such information to its former employee. This will also fulfill the purpose and objective of RTI Act which was to promote the good and transparent governance. The PIO is directed to furnish the information within two weeks of receipt of the order to the Appellant and to send a compliance report in this regard to the Commission within three weeks of receipt of the order with a copy to the Appellant.
5. The appeal is disposed with the above directions.
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Tarun Kumar) Additional Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO Department of Revenue Govt. of NCT of Delhi O/o SDM (Kalkaji 37 Tughlakabad Institutional Area New Delhi
2. Shri Lal Chand JA/42F, Hari Nagar New Delhi 110 064