Central Information Commission
Smita Totla vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 19 July, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/172350
Smt. Smita Totla ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Sub Divisional Magistrate (Alipur) ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Alipur, North District,
D.M. -North Office Complex, Alipur,
Delhi - 110036
Through: Sh. Rakesh Kumar - Naib Tehsildar on
behalf of Ms. Akriti Sagar - PIO/SDM, Alipur
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2019
Date of Decision : 19.07.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.03.2017
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 22.06.2017
First Appellate Order on : 18.07.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.10.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The applicant had received a cheque from Govt of NCT of Delhi for Rs. 16,041/- bearing machine No. 363639 dated 16.10.2015 on account of drought relief for her agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kulakpur, Delhi. This cheque was prepared in the name of SUNITA TOTLA. The banker did not accept the said cheque as correct name of the beneficiary is SMITA TOTLA. She alleged that she had returned the subject cheque vide her RTI application dated 10.11.2015 under speed post cover for issue of a fresh cheque in favour of her correct name i.e. SMITA TOTLA. However, she could not receive a fresh cheque with the correct spelling of her name. Feeling aggrieved due to non receipt of a fresh cheque she filed RTI application dated 10.03.2017 seeking information on the following six points:-Page 1 of 3
(1) Have you not reconciled your Bank account from which these compensation cheques have been issued? If reconciled then above cheque should remain unpaid.
(2) Is it correct that my name was not correct on the cheque and therefore it could not have been deposited in my Bank Account?
(3) The amount of cheque is also not correct as it should have been more than Rs. 18,300/- instead of Rs. 16,041/-
(4) Is it correct that ADM (North) order in this respect are still to be complied even after one year.
(5) If the original cheque has not been received by you, then what is the alternative? As it is, cheque has become useless and outdated.
(6) Please let me know clearly what exactly I should do now to get the compensation in correct name and for correct amount.
PIO/Sub Divisional Magistrate (Alipur) did not respond to the RTI application. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal before the Appellate Authority on 22.06.2017.
The FAA vide order dated 18.07.2017 directed the PIO to provide reply to the applicant within 05 days.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAO, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and have submitted their respective written submissions. While the submissions of the appellant narrate the background of the case, the submissions received from the respondent/PIO, SDM, Alipur are as under:
"....the matter is related to ex-gratia relief for crops damage caused by heavy rain and hailstorm. A cheque for Rs. 16,041/- had been prepared in name of Sunita Totla as "Kumari Sunita Totla" is recorded owner of Kh No. 24/8,9 of village-Kulakpur, Delhi..However, a person claiming attorney of Ms. Smita Totla was asking for name change in record as Smita Totla instead of Kumari Sunita Totla. Since, the recorded owner has not adopted due process for name correction/change as per law. Hence, case for crop compensation has not been get approved as desired by this applicant."
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case submitted by both parties and hearing their respective submissions, the Commission notes that the reply of the PIO is not only delayed beyond reasonable period of time but it also suffers from inadequacy of facts in as much as it is a vague and perfunctory statement Page 2 of 3 which fails to indicate the exact procedure which should be adopted by the appellant to obtain the crop compensation that she is entitled to.
The Commission takes a very serious note of such conduct of the PIO, particularly in the light of the FAA's order. The contention of the PIO is thus set aside as incorrect and illegal per se. In view of the facts as noted hereinabove, the Commission hereby directs Registry of this Bench to issue NOTICE to the PIO/SDM, Alipur- Ms. Akriti Sagar seeking her explanation for adopting dilatory tactics, instead of directly and proactively addressing the grievance of the appellant in compliance with the FAA's order and not providing accurate and timely information under the RTI Act. The PIO/SDM, Alipur shall submit her explanation by 05.08.2019, explaining why no penal action should be initiated against her for failure in discharging the functions of PIO.
The Commission further directs the PIO/SDM, Alipur to provide complete information to the appellant in response to her specific queries and resolve the issue related to accurate procedure to be adopted by her to give effect to the name change. The PIO/SDM, Alipur is mandated to submit an action taken report in this regard by 09.08.2019.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
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 3 of 3