Central Information Commission
B S Raman vs Revenue Department on 23 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/REVDP/A/2024/630608
B S RAMAN ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, O/o SR- VIII, L M Bandh, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 07.01.2026, 19.01.2026
Date of Decision : 08.01.2026, 22.01.2026
Chief Information Commissioner : Raj Kumar Goyal
Relevant dates:
RTI application filed on : 03.04.2024
PIO replied on : 22.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 03.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 25.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint : 17.07.2024
received on
Information soughtand background of the case:
1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 03.04.2024 before the SR-VIII, Revenue Department, Delhi stating as under:
"District Magistrate - East vide order number F No DM/East/2023/49-54 dated 30/01/2024 (copy enclosed) has adjudicated that Stamp Paper No 202925 dated 1/9/2000 could not have been purchased on 1/9/2000 vide para 13 of the said order - yet per para 8 of the said order, stamp paper bearing no 20925 dated 1/9/2000 is shown as registered in the SR VIII office for a Gift Deed vide Doc No 5307 in Addl. Book No 1 Vol 396 on pages 60-65 on 11/12/2000. You are requested to kindly certify the authenticity or otherwise of the said registered Gift Deed vide document 5307 - if not authentic, details of actual document registered at 5307 in Vol 396 along with Name, address and other details of parties (cash receipt number, stamp paper number, its value, purpose of the document etc.)"
[reproduced verbatim] Second Appeal No. CIC/REVDP/A/2024/630608 Page 1 of 5
2. The Sub Registrar- VIII, District East sent a reply dated 22.04.2024 stating as under:
"Firstly, copy of any order has not been received/enclosed with the RTI application.
Secondly, as per given detail, a Gift Deed has been found registered in this office vide registration no. 5307 Book I Volume no. 396 pages 60-65 dt. 11/12/2000 consists of 06 pages for which you are requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 12 (@2/-per page) to obtain the certified copy of the said instrument.."
[reproduced verbatim]
3. The Appellant filed an online First Appeal dated 03.05.2024 before the FAA on the ground that incomplete, misleading or false information has been furnished by the PIO.
4. The FAA/Additional District Magistrate(East) passed an order dated 25.06.2024 holding as under:
"After perusal of record, it is found that no reply has been given to appellant.
PIO/SR-VIII (Geeta Colony), District East, Delhi is hereby directed to give the reply of R.T.I. application as per RTI Act, 2005 within a week after receipt of this order to the appellant.."
[reproduced verbatim]
5. Dissatisfied with non-compliance of the FAA's order, the Appellant filed the instant Second appeal. It is important to note that the FAA has not taken into account the PIO's reply dated 22.04.2024.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
6. Hearing was initially scheduled for 08.01.2026, after giving prior notice to both the parties.
7. The Respondent filed written submission dated 05.01.2026, wherein the aforementioned PIO's reply and FAA's order have been mentioned and it has also been stated that the FAA's order dated 25.06.2024 was complied on 08.07.2024 by the Sub Registrar/PIO, District East annexed at pg. 17, which stated as under:
"It is to inform you that, as per available record pasted in the volume, a Gift Deed has been found registered in this office vide Registration No. 5307, Book No. 1, Volume No. 396, Pages 60-65, dated 11/12/2000."
[Reproduced verbatim] Second Appeal No. CIC/REVDP/A/2024/630608 Page 2 of 5
8. The Appellant was absent during the hearing and the hearing notice returned unserved. On behalf of the Respondent, Ms. Rekha Goel - Sub Registrar - VIII, and Ms. Neelam Varun - Sr. Asstt. attended the hearing in person.
9. Considering the fact that the hearing notice could not be served to the Appellant, for a fair hearing of both parties, the Registry of this Bench was directed to serve hearing notice once again to both parties, through speed post and on their respective email address/es and reschedule the hearing of this case on 19.01.2026.
Decision:
10. Hearing was scheduled once again after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present despite service of notice. Respondent: Ms. Rekha Goel - Sub Registrar - VIII and Mr. Tarun Singh were present.
11. The Respondent present submitted that the written submission/counter statement dated 05.01.2026, which includes the compliance of the FAA's order dated 25.06.2024 vide PIO's reply dated 08.07.2024 mentioned hereinabove, has been sent to the Appellant.
Decision:
12. Considering the aforementioned facts, it is noted that the information available on record with the public authority has been duly sent to him. It is pertinent to note that in the First Appeal, the Appellant had specifically sought: "a clarification be issued regarding the validity of document 5307 registered in Vol 396 on pages 60-65 on 11/12/2000 with SR VIII in support of the decision of DM East"
and "clarify from scrutiny of SR VIII records (cash receipts, master registration record of year 2000, Peshi register etc..) details of original document 5307 (document purpose, name and address of executor, stamp paper number etc..) that has been apparently removed from the records of SR VIII to accommodate the said forged Gift Deed."
Second Appeal No. CIC/REVDP/A/2024/630608 Page 3 of 5
13. It is important to note that clarification or justification of the public authority does not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled: Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. :
"35. .... it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. .. where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant.
[emphasis supplied]
14. The PIO has furnished the information available on records, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. It is also noted that despite being given a fair opportunity to present his case, the Appellant has chosen not to contest the case nor sent any counter statement with respect to the information provided by the Respondent. Under the circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The matter is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/REVDP/A/2024/630608 Page 4 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/REVDP/A/2024/630608 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)