Central Information Commission
Siddharth Jain vs Revenue Department on 20 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/REVDP/A/2024/603695
Siddharth Jain .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Revenue Department (GNCTD),
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2025
Date of Decision : 20.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.10.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 29.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me copy of the General Power of Attorney dated
02.02.1996 registered in the name of Kiran Jain W/o Ch. P. Kumar vide Registration No. 4817, Book No. 4, Volume No. 3830, on Pages 19-23 in Page 1 of 7 respect of Flat No. 725, Veer Apartments, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi- 110085.
kindly also provide the identity certificate issued by DV Gupta, Deputy Secretary identifying Kiran Jain W/o Ch. P. Kumar provided by Kiran Jain at the time of registration of said General Power of Attorney. The said General Power of Attorney is registered with Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi situated in Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
The Applicant herein is entitled to claim the aforesaid information in view of the Order dated 12.02.2014 in the matter titled as "Surjeet Singh Malhotra Vs Revenue Department (GNCTD)" File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/003473. The relevant para of the said Order is reproduced herein for your reference:
3. During the hearing, the Respondent officer submitted that they waited for the Appellant to come and inspect as per the directions of CIC, but he did not turn up. However, the Respondent contended that according to Registration Act, 1908, they cannot share copy of the GPA to the Appellant. The Commission once again explained to the Respondent that RTI Act overrules the provisions of Registration Act. As far as disclosure of information is concerned, GPA is neither third party nor private information. GPA which means General Power of Attorney is nothing but authorizing of other person by the owner of the property to transfer the property on his behalf which again means representing the owner in the Registration Office. GPA is identified with the owner of the property. Both of them together will be considered as one party. The registration of the transaction over the property is done by State Department with the purpose of putting the information about the transaction to the notice of the public and it is a public document. The Registration Office is under an obligation to provide the information about the registration of a transaction (transfer of property) to anybody who is interested in knowing it. RTI, however, reiterates it, confirms it, mandates it that such public information be shared with anybody who is seeking it. Hence, the PIO is directed to provide a copy of the GPA to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order. Therefore, in view of the above, Applicant is entitled to claim the desired information. kindly provide the information sought by the Applicant within stipulated time period as prescribed under RTI Act, 2005."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 2 of 73. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Lokesh Prasad, CPIO-cum-SDM (HQ), Ms. Kalpana Ghosh, PIO-cum-Sub Registrar (Rohini) and Shri Gudakesh Kumar, APIO-cum-Link Officer (Sub-Registrar- I/ Kashmere Gate), attended the hearing in person.
4. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
5. Ms. Kalpana Ghosh, PIO-cum-Sub Registrar (Rohini), submitted that the custodian of the relevant information as sought in the RTI Application is Kashmere Gate.
6. Shri Gudakesh Kumar, APIO-cum-Link Officer (Sub-Registrar- I/ Kashmere Gate), submitted that the Appellant is not the owner of the averred property and therefore the information cannot be given being exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. He added that for acquiring any information/documents in respect of the property, there is provision in the Registration Act, 1908 i.e. Inspection of the Documents and for obtaining Copy of the Document, party may obtain the desired information after paying requisite fee Rs.100/- for Inspection of one Year & for obtaining copy of the document Rs.10/- per page with Rs 10/- stamp paper is to be paid after due procedure/request. In specific cases presentation before Sub-Registrar may be required for obtaining copy of the documents. He further apprised the bench of the fact that GPA is a document of Book-IV and cannot be given as per Registration Act, 1908.
7. While explaining the delay in proving the reply to the RTI Application, the Respondent submitted that delay in the present case is not deliberate or intentional and it happened since RTI portal was not accessible to the undersigned due to a technical glitch and new password and I.D. creation took some time. The Respondent further tendered apologises for all the inconvenience and humbly submits that he will be careful in future to avoid any such delay.
Page 3 of 78. A written submission has been received from Sub-Registrar VI-C, Rohini, vide letter dated 20.05.2025, stating as under:
"Respected Sir, This is with reference to the above CIC order dated 08.05.2025 and RTI filed by Sh. Sidharth Jain. In this connection, the following is submitted for kind consideration of Hon'ble Information Commissioner:
1. As per records available in this office, an online request under RTI Act, 2005 dated 07.10.2023 was received by Nodal Officer which was forwarded to Sub- Registrar VI-C, Rohini, Delhi on 24.02.2024.
2. The RTI applicant has requested for a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.1996 registered in the name of Kiran Jain w/o Ch.P. Kumar vide registration No.4817, Book No.4, Volume No.3830, on pages 19-23 in r/o Flat No.725, Veer Apartments, Sec-13, Rohini, Delhi. Further, it is also mentioned that the said GPA was registered with Sub-Registrar-1, Delhi situated in Kashmere Gate.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that though the property presently falls under the jurisdiction of SR VI-C Rohini, this ofice was not in existance in the year 1996 during the period in which the above mentioned GPA was registered. This office came into existence in Sep.,2005 and therefore the record of the requisite GPA is not available in this office. And as evident from the RTI application the GPA was registered with SR-1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
4. On receiving the CIC order No.CIC/REVDP/A/2024/603695 dated 08.05.2025 from CIC, the RTI portal was immediately checked and the RTI was transferred online to SR-1 Kashmere Gate (copy enclosed- Annexure I). A mail was also sent to SR-I Kashmere Gate with regard to same (copy enclosed- Annexure-II).
5. Further, an O.M. dated 16.05.2025 was hand delivered to SR-I Kashmere Gate to provide the requisite information/documents to the RTI applicant and also to attend the Hearing for appeal/complaint at CIC. (copy enclosed- Annexure III).
6. A communication was also mailed to the applicant appraising him of all the facts of the matter (copy enclosed- Annexure-IV).
7. Further, it is humbly submitted that delay in the present case was not deliberate or intentional, it happened due to the fact that RTI portal was not accessible to the undersigned due to a technical glitch. New password and I.D. creation took some time. Also no offline appeal in the present case was received in this office.
8. The undersigned apologises for all the inconvenience caused to the concerned and very humbly submits to be careful in future to avoid any such delay."
9. A written submission has been received from Shri Gudakesh Kumar, APIO-
cum-Link Officer (Sub-Registrar- I/ Kashmere Gate), vide letter dated 21.05.2025, stating as under:
"In this regard the following is submitted for your kind perusal as under:-Page 4 of 7
1. It is submitted that Sh. Siddharth Jain had filed a RTI application dated 07.10.2023 with the request to provide the Copy of GPA dated 02.02.1996 registered in the name of Ms. Kiran Jain and also requested to provide the certified copy of identity certificate issued by Mr. DV Gupta, Dy. Secretary identifying Ms. Kiran Jain provided by Ms. Kiran Jain at the time of registration.
2. In this reference, it is to inform that this office has made its best efforts to trace the said RTI reply, however, the said RTI reply is not found in record.
3. It is to submitted that for acquiring any information/documents in r/o Property, there is provision in the Registration Act, 1908 i.e. Inspection of the Documents and for obtaining Copy of the Document, party may obtain the desired information after paying requisite fee Rs.100/- for Inspection of one Year & for obtaining copy of the document Rs.10/- per page with Rs 10 stamp paper is to be paid after due procedure/request. In specific cases presentation before Sub-Registrar may be required for obtaining copy of the documents.
4. It is to apprise that GPA is a document of Book IV and cannot be given as per Registration Act, 1908. Hence, information sought cannot be withheld citing provisions of Registration Act 1908.
5. This is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court of Central Information Commissioner and further suitable direction."
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, finds it pertinent to rely upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujrat and Another [(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 702], dated 04.03.2020, wherein it has been held as under:
"41. We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/ certified copies of the documents. When there is effective machinery for having access to information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reason for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI act itself intends to avoid.
42. We summarise our conclusion:
42.1. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or Page 5 of 7 orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reason for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI act; but merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI act and other law, the overriding effect of the RTI act would not apply.
42.2. The information to the accessed/certified office on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI act shall not be resorted to."
11. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since an alternate efficacious remedy of obtaining the desired information through the procedure established under the Registration Act, 1908, is already available with the Appellant, without resorting to the RTI Act.
12. The written submission sent by the Respondent vide letter dated 21.05.2025, is appropriate but a copy of the same has not been sent to the Appellant. Accordingly, Shri Gudakesh Kumar, APIO-cum-Link Officer (Sub-Registrar- I/ Kashmere Gate), is directed to send a copy of the same to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. However, before parting with the case, the Respondent is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future. No further action is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. Secy. (Rev.), Revenue Department (GNCTD), 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)