Central Information Commission
Ms.Devki Devi vs Gnctd on 13 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001716/8952
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001716
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Smt. Devki Devi
3654/ 16, Raigar Pura,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi- 110005
Mobile No. 9213719299
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Gupta
Public Information Officer & SDM (Civil Lines) Office of Deputy Commissioner (North), Govt. of NCD of Delhi 1, Kripa Narain Marg, Delhi- 110054 RTI application filed on : 14/09/2009 PIO replied : 26/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 08/03/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 10/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 22/06/2010 S.No. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Whether a will prepared in Karol Bagh can Yes be deposited with the Sub- Registrar, Kashmere Gate.
2. If not, then is such a will illegal? If yes, then Not applicable state the law for the same.
3. If such a will is illegal, then can the Office No of Deputy Commissioner (North) cancel the same? If yes, then why has the said will not been cancelled?
4. Should this will be accompanied by a No previous will or papers pertaining to the property?
5. Why has chain not been deposited along No such provision in the Registration Act, 1908 with the will? ("Registration Act").
6. Action taken against the concerned official Per the Registration Act, action cannot be taken who has deposited the said will. against the Deputy Registrar.
7. Requisite steps taken for cancellation of the No such provision in the Registration Act. will and information regarding the same.
8. Can papers pertaining to GPA and SPA Per Section 29 of the Registration Act, papers properties of Karol Bagh be deposited with pertaining to GPA and SPA properties of Karol the Sub- Registrar, Kashmere Gate? Bagh cannot be deposited with the Sub- Registrar, Page 1 of 3 Kashmere Gate.
9. Please provide information on the applicable Copies of Section 29 of the Registration Act and laws/ bye- laws. the order of the Registrar General dated 17/07/2002 have been provided along with the reply to the RTI application bearing I.D. No. 65- CL on 31/10/2009.
First Appeal:
Reply of PIO was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, a complaint was filed by the Appellant before the CIC, which was remanded to the FAA on 08/03/2010 on the basis that the Appellant had not used the alternate and efficacious remedy of first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The order of the FAA stipulated that the Appellant had filed another RTI application on 01/12/2009, to which the PIO responded on 31/12/2009. It was noted that the reply to question number 8 of the RTI application dated 14/09/2009 and reply to question number 1 of the RTI application dated 01/12/2009 were contradictory. The PIO was directed to provide the correct reply to the Appellant within 10 days of the date of the order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The order of the FAA has not been complied with and the information sought has not been provided to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Khushal representing Smt. Devki Devi;
Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Chand, KGO on behalf of Mr. Ashok Gupta, PIO & SDM (Civil Lines);
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Sub-registrar & APIO, Kashmiri Gate Delhi;
The information sought by the appellant on query-1 basically involves an interpretation of different rules as is claimed by the respondent. He has tried to give interpretation but there are different conditions that apply and hence in such an issue of giving clarifications certain differences are likely to creep in. The respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar however states that he had again given a clarification as per the order of the FAA which was issued on 10/05/2010 on 20/05/2010. This was sent to the office of the PIO. The PIO's office claims that this was sent by courier. He has produced a courier receipt of United Courier Services which does not appear to have any identifiable date. The appellant states that he has received it on 29/07/2010 and the post mark appears to be of 24/07/2010. It appears to the Commission that the PIO's office is giving false statement. The Commission has repeatedly told all the PIOs that they will send all the RTI communications through speed post. In the instant case it appears that false information has been given to the Commission by the PIO. The letter of 20/05/2010 given by Mr. Rakesh Kumar appears to have been sent only on 24/07/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. Ashok Gupta, PIO & SDM (Civil Lines) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is 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.Page 2 of 3
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Ashok Gupta, PIO & SDM (Civil Lines) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 22 September 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He 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 13 August 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND) Page 3 of 3