Central Information Commission
Mr. Naveen Kapoor vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, ... on 7 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000497/7386
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000497
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kapoor,
E-485, GK-II,
New Delhi - 110048
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Yadav
Public Information Officer & Jt. Assessor & Collector/Admn, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assessment & Collection Dept(HQ), Property Tax Building, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi- 110024 RTI application filed on : 28/09/2009 PIO replied : 16/09/2009; 30/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 30/09/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 23/11/2009 Second Appeal received on : 24/02/2010 Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/03/2010 Hearing held on : 07/04/2010 Sl. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Is it correct that the words "rateable value" Yes. To the extent the Rateable Value has have been substituted by "annual value" in the been substituted by Annual Value. The rest DMC Act, 2003 by DMC Amendment Act, part does not come under the purview of 2003? Offer the departmental interpretation of definition of Information under the RTI Act, this provision. How does the same affect the 2005. working of the Assessment & Collection Deptt after the implementation of the UAM?
2. Which Section of the Act allows the officers of Rectification of ex-parte assessment is A & C Deptt to increase or decrease the being done as per provision of Section 176 rateable value through rectifications? Can of the DMC Act and departmental officers of MCD reopen any ex parte instructions issued from time to time. assessment (except under Court's deirection) determined on the basis of rateable value, when RV stands deleted on 1.8.03? The applicant ants an interpretation of the same from the HOD of Property Tax Deptt.
3. Currently, which type of cases can be As per provisions of Section 116-G-
considered by the Assessing Officers under the Transitory Provision of the DMC Act, those Transitory Provisions as facilitated vide cases can be considered for assessment, Section 116 G of the amended DMC Act where assessment has not been finalized. 2003? Nevertheless, Presently, there is no such type of cases, due to the fact that all had already become time barred, on account of issuance of notice u/s 126 of the pre-
amended DMC Act and prior to 01.08.2003 i.e. date of notification of the amended Act, 2003.
4. Are ex parte cases already lying decided in the No. However, reopening of ex-parte department (after the issuance of assessment facility still persists by way of commissioner order dated 12.3.07 bearing no. rectification under the old system of PSC/144/2007) can be ever reopened as assessment i.e. the rateable value. transitory provision cases? Can reopening persist after 1.8.03?
5. Are remand cases eligible for consideration for No. decision under 116 G (2) i.e. transitory provisions?
6. Is it correct that the cases in which notices Not correct as per details given. However, it issued under section 126 of the DMC Act (pre is informed that time barred limitation is amendment) had the time bar limitation period only for a period of 3 yrs. as under:
1. Notices issued i.e. 1.4.2001 expired on 31.3.2005
2. Notices issued i.e. 1.4.2002 expired on 31.3.2006
3. Notices issued i.e. 1.4.2003 expired on 31.3.2007
7. What is the status of pending cases at Same as answer to query 3.
present? Is there any other category of cases that can be designated as transitory provision cases?
8. Can officers' change predecided ex parte Officers are empowered to decide ex-parte assessments decided on rateable value? Give assessments on merits under the old system the provision of law relied on for the same. (rateable value) as per the departmental instructions issued from time to time.
Further, ex parte cases are not covered u/s 116G(2) due to the reason that this facilitates only those cases whose assessment have not been finalized.
9. Has the amended DMC Act enabled the Same as answer to query 3.
officers of A & C Deptt to retain old system of assessment after the amendments notified on 1.8.2003?
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
PIO/HQ is directed to supply the information to the appellant is detail within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
Reply of PIO after Order of First Appellate Authority: PIO provided the same reply after correcting the serial number of the replies. The reply dated 16.09.2009 was numbered 10 to 18. The same was changed to 1 to 9.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Naveen Kapoor;
Respondent: Mr. S. C. Yadav, Public Information Officer & Jt. Assessor & Collector/Admn;
The PIO has provided the information but is now directed to provide the following additional information:
1- Query-1: copies of departmental instructions. 2- Decision:
The appeal is 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 07 April 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AS)