Central Information Commission
Mr.Shallender Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001965/9169
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001965
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shailender Singh
S/o Mr. Vijay Singh
R/o 60 A, Humayunpur, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi - 110029
Respondent : Ms. Juhi Mukherjee
Public Information Officer & SDM (HK) Government of NCT of Delhi, O/o the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Hauz Khas), Old Tehsil building, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 RTI application filed on : 25/012010 PIO replied : 27/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 11/03/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2010 Second Appeal received on : 13/07/2010 Information Sought The Appellant sought information regarding the 'jama bandi' pertaining to the 'inteqal' No. 470. Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) The 'inteqal' no 470 was inspected in record 'mal' of Humayunpur village. According to the record 'mal' register 'inteqal' no 470 was registered in 'Parat Patwar' register but no action has been taken. Therefore, no information can be provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
For RTI ID No 289 the FAA directed the SDM (HK) to try and understand the nature of the information sought by the Appellant and allow the Appellant to inspect the documents within 15 days. For RTI application ID no 288, the FAA directed the PIO to furnish the information within 15 days and make sure that in the future the RTI applications are disposed of within the stipulated time frame. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Shailendra Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Nitin Panigrahi, Tehsildar representing Ms. Juhi Mukherjee, PIO & SDM (HK);
The appellant has sought information about 'Intqual no. 470'. The PIO has replied that this is quasi-judicial process and the decision has not been taken so far. The appellant pointed out that this is being used by the revenue department since 1952. The respondent claims that this is quasi-judicial process and no decision has been taken since 1952 hence the matter is undecided. The respondent contends that unless a decision is taken in a judicial / quasi-judicial process the same cannot become part of the record. The Commission sees that this is an undesirable practice if a decision can be kept pending for over five decades. Human progress everywhere has been by ensuring that processes are completed faster and faster whereas the department appears to believe that it has the right to suspend taking a decision for an indefinite time.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 01 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN)