Central Information Commission
Mr.Nareshkumar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001331/8309
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001331
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Naresh Kumar
21 A, Gadodiya Market,
Khari Bawli,
Delhi - 110006.
Respondent : Mr. Ashish Mohan
SDM (Narela) & PIO Govt. of NCT of Delhi BDO office Complex, Alipur, Delhi - 36.
RTI application filed on : 17/12/2009 PIO replied : transferred to SDM Narela on 27/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 08/02/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 19/05/2010 S. No Information Sought
1. In the village of Pehlapur Baanger, the land on Khasra No. 58/15 was registered under the name of Naresh Kumar and his son Dindayal, who bought it, however the profits of this land are going to Ms. Seeta Devi, Mr. Fateh singh and Chand singh instead. What is the reason for such an action and which all officers are responsible for this act?
2. The above mentioned land was given to Mr. Naresh and his son by Mr. Suraj Mal, his son Jograj, Mr. Raj singh and son Khushiram, Mr. Ashok Kumar and son Shivram Das and lastly Mr. Madan lal and his son Jagraj. However profits are being received by others as mentioned. Why has this land registered under their name? Who all are responsible for this, their name and details are needed.
3. According to the letter No. APM/LAC(N/W)/2009/486, dated 27/11/2009, information and details of Ms. Seeta Devi, Fateh Singh and Chand Singh as registered should be provided.
4. On what basis have Ms. Seeta Devi and others acquired the land that belonged to Naresh Kumar? A copy of the certified documents should be provided.
5. Since according to the registry, the owner of the land is Naresh Kumar, hence what procedure and time for the transfer of profits to Naresh Kumar and his son in the future.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed Page 1 of 2 Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information provided in reply to the application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Horilal Sharma representing Mr. Naresh Kumar; Respondent: Mr. Tribhuwan Kumar, LDC on behalf of Mr. Ashish Mohan, SDM (Narela) & PIO;
The Respondent states that the information on queries 2 & 4 had been sent on 21/01/2010 to the appellant. The appellant states that he has not received this so far. It is given to the appellant in front of the Commission. The Respondent states that the RTI application with respect to point 1, 3 & 5 was transferred to LAC(NW) Kanjhawala on 05/02/2010. According to the appellant he has not received any information from PIO LAC(NW). The Respondent states that the person responsible for providing information late and also transferring the RTI application was Mr. Ashish Mohan, SDM(Narela).
It is apparent that the information on points 1, 3 & 5 has not been provided by PIO LAC(NW).
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
PIO LAC (NW) is directed to provide the information on queries 1, 3 & 5 to the appellant before 10 July 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIOs Mr. Ashish Mohan, SDM(Narela) and PIO LAC(NW) within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. Ashish Mohan, SDM(Narela) and PIO LAC(NW) will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 22 July 2010 at 02.30PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 24 June 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) CC:
To, PIO LAC (NW) on behalf of Mr. Ashish Mohan, PIO & SDM(Narela); Page 2 of 2