Central Information Commission
Prem Shanker Agrawal vs Estate Office on 29 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ESOFF/C/2023/121321
Prem Shanker Agrawal ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
The Tehsildar Estate Office,
Sector- 17, U.T.
Chandigarh-160017 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024
Date of Decision : 26.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.08.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 03.10.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.03.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"Please furnish the documents as information under RTI Act 2005 under Section 2 (f) & 2 (i) (iv) as mentioned below:
1. Certified copy of the reply letter received from Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your memo no. 378547/Teh (E)SIE/2020 dated 04.09.2020 sent to him.Page 1 of 5
2. Certified copy of the reply letter received from Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your memo no. 453818/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 22.06.2022 sent to him.
3. Certified copy of the reply letter received from Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your memo no. 456456/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 11.07.2022 sent to him.
4. Certified copy of the reply letter received from SDO (B), Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your memo no. 453820/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 22.06.2022 sent to him.
5. Certified copy of the reply letter received from SDO (B), Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your memo no. 456458/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 11.07.2022 sent to him.
6. Certified copy of the reply letter received from the President. CSIO Society, Vigyan Vihar, Sector-49-A, Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your Endst No.453822/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 22.06.2022, Endst No.456460/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 11.07.2022.
7. Certified copy of the reply letter received from SDO (B), Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against your Endst No. 448499/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 13.05.2022 sent to him and the action taken report on the letter on SDO (B), Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh against Endst No. 448499/Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 13.05.2022 sent to you.
8. Certified copy of the letter received from the President. CSIO Society, Vigyan Vihar, Sector-49-A, Chandigarh attached as Annexure "F" with the Memo No. 448498/CPIO-
cum-Teh (E)/SIE/2022 dated 13.05.2022 sent to Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi.
9. Certified copy of the reply letter sent to SDO(B) by Tehsildar-cum-CPIO (Enforcement), Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh with diary number along with receiving date against his memo no. 452066//SDO(B)/CSIO Soc-49/2022 dated 09.06.2022 and also the copy of reply letter sent to Superintendent Estate-ii- cum-CPIO, Chandigarh Administration against his letter: No. 07-RTI-CPIO-SE-II- 2022/9932 dated 06.07.2022.
10. Certified copy of rules/laws/norms framed by Chandigarh Administration to remove the Encroachments from all the places in the City with responsible authorities / departments."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 2 of 5Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application till date.
The Respondent submitted that their office has not received the instant RTI Application at the initial stage because of which the same could not be replied within stipulated time frame.
The Commission interjected and asked the Respondent that whether they have received the copy of RTI Application and First Appeal along with the hearing notice from the Commission, he replied in negative. The Commission further asked that who was the then CPIO, the answering Respondent submitted that Shri Yogesh Kumar, Tehsildar was the then CPIO. He further volunteered to provide the relevant information to the Complainant within one week. Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Complainant as per available records. Further the Respondent submitted that their office has neither received the RTI Application at the initial stage nor with the hearing notice from the Commission, which is misleading because the RTI was filed online bearing registration No. UTCEO/R/E/22/00240 as per Annexure A-2 of the Complaint. Therefore, Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar- cum-CPIO, has not only mislead the Commission by averring that their office has not received the RTI Application with the hearing notice from the Commission but has also vitiated the proceedings of the hearing. The Commission expresses severe displeasure against the conduct of Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-CPIO and accordingly admonishes him. The Commission strictly cautions him to acquaint himself well with the facts and circumstances of the case while appearing before the Commission.Page 3 of 5
Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the then CPIO Shri Yogesh Kumar, Tehsildar for not providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application and Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-CPIO, for misleading the Commission and therefore they are being called to show cause. The act of the concerned CPIOs, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In view of the above, inaction on his/her part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to the then CPIO Shri Yogesh Kumar, Tehsildar and Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-CPIO. The CPIO's shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of then CPIO and the present CPIO for not providing any reply within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes that Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-CPIO, has submitted before the bench that he has not received the instant RTI Application along with the hearing notice of the Commission and accordingly the Commission deems it fit to direct Shri Punay Deep Sharma, Tehsildar-cum-CPIO, to submit an appropriate affidavit, on non- judicial stamp paper deposing the factum of non-receipt of the same. The said affidavit should be submitted to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Complaint, along with the written explanation to the SCN.
The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA Assistant Estate Officer-II Estate Office, Sector- 17, U.T. Chandigarh-160017 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)