Central Information Commission
Jagdev Singh vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 25 July, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ADDDM/A/2021/122181 -UM
Mr. Jagdev Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Sub Division Magistrate
Punjabi Bagh, Main Rohtak Road,
Nangloi, New Delhi- 110041
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2022
Date of Decision : 25.07.2022
Date of RTI application 08.10.2020
CPIO's response 05.11.2020
Date of the First Appeal 03.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 02.02.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 11.06.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.11.2020, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated
02.02.2021 directed the CPIO to serve Show Cause Notice to the Dealing Assistant (RTI) for not giving proper reply to the Appellant.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jagdev Singh with D.S Lakra present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Jr. Assistant, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding area of the agriculture land left in his name as per report of the concerned patwari etc. He further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. Moreover, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) order dated 02.02.2021 has not been complied with properly, he said and added that the CPIO in his reply did not clarify whether the land is Lal dora or agriculture. He claimed that the government had acquired his agriculture land on the promise of providing another piece of land. Thereafter, he had applied for alternative land but his application was rejected, he said and alleged that the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving Page 2 of 3 misinformation. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 05.11.2020, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 02.07.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 25.07.2022 Page 3 of 3