Appellant submitted that their house was in the revenue records since 1980 & was demolished despite a Court Stay order - He sought to know who took the decision & the basis of demolition - CIC: Provide information; show cause for penalty issued to PIO
2. The appellant filed RTI application dated 07-06-2013 whereby he has sought information with respect to the demolition conducted on the property of Sh Pyare Lal Viz
i) Upon which order/direction you had done the work of demolition at the above said property, please give me the documentary proof of the above said order
ii) Before this demolition, had the demarcation by the competent authority of the above said property was carried out or not, if Yes, give the name and designation of the competent authority with demarcation report in this regard etc.
PIO replied on 12-07-2013 stating that question is not clear and also that no such information is available. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, the appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA by his Order dated 28-10-2013 stated that “appellant shall assist the PIO in identification of the property so that the relevant information may be provided within 30 days”. Claiming non-furnishing of information from the respondent authority, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The PIO Mr. Himanshu Gupta is not present. Mr. T.Sunil Kumar Sharma, Tehsidar has represented the PIO and seems to be knowing nothing about the case. He is saying that there was no demolition and at the same time he is also saying that no such record is available. In spite of FAA orders which state that the appellant shall assist the PIO in identification of the property so that the relevant information may be provided within 30 days, the PIO has not done anything. When the appellant approached him, he chose to give a formal reply that record is not available. In the letter dated 13-10-2014 sent by the PIO it is stated that no such information is available and in the next sentence he says no such demolition happened. Such a reply is contradictory and on the basis of it, it appears to be untruthful. The demolition was done in 2007. The appellant submits that since 1980, their house, which was demolished was in the revenue records and there was also a Stay order of the Court, against demolition of their house and inspite of it, the respondent authority has demolished the house on 22-7-2007. The appellant wanted to know who took the decision for demolition and what was the basis of demolition. It seems that the Department is trying to suppress the information since beginning. The appellant alleged that the owner of the opposite house colluded with the respondent authority, and caused demolition of his house on the excuse of complaint of the opposite house owner that their house is falling in his area/road. He alleged that the respondent authority demolished the house without demarcating the extent of the land owned by the appellant and the owner of the opposite house, with a malicious intention.
4. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent authority to furnish the information sought by the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the PIO, Mr. Himanshu Gupta is directed to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for not furnishing the proper information to the appellant within the prescribed time as per FAA Order, for not being present for the hearing today and also for deputing an officer who does not know the details of the case. His explanation should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and he should ensure to be present for the next date of hearing, to be intimated by the Registry.
5. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Sh. Ravinder Kumar Kaushik v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Najafgarh) in File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000164