After a lapse of more than 2 years, the applicant was asked to apply in CA-I form to obtain the requisite information - CIC: There is an apparent violation of the RTI Act and the same cannot be condoned; Show cause notice issued to PIO for penalty

Information sought and background of the case:

Appellant filed RTI application dated 07.12.2017 seeking information on 11 points:-

1. Provide the copy of Registry/Diary with respect to entry of date 11.02.2015 and 12.02.2015 in which order of the ADM/NW in case no. 74/96/09/21/12 (as mentioned in the said Jamabandi) was received vide Diary No. 2016/SDM/ACP dated 12.02.2015.

2. Whether after the receipt of the above said order of the ADM (NW), any notice was issued to the erstwhile Bhumidar namely Ved Prakash?

3. If any such notice was sent to Ved Prakash, then provide the copy of such notice.

 4. Whether after receipt of the above said order of the ADM (NW), any notice was issued to the Gram Sabha?

5. If any such notice was sent to Gram Sabha, then provide the copy of such notice. Etc

Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.01.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Both parties are present and heard. The appellant submits that no information is furnished to him till date. The Respondent submits that information sought through this RTI is related to judicial order passed under the provision of DLR Act by the then ADM(NW) and further entry made of that judicial order in the revenue record. He further submits that Halka Patwari has already informed the appellant that he may apply in CA-I form before the Record Keeper and documents may be obtained after paying requisite fee in due process of law. The appellant submits that he has already applied in CA-I form before the Record Keeper.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records, the Commission is constrained to note that in response to the RTI application, the Appellant is informed after a lapse of more than 2 years that, he may apply in CA-I form before the Record Keeper to obtain the requisite information/documents, after payment of requisite fee. It is clear that the negligence and indifference on the part of the public authority has caused unjust delay in providing the requisite information to the Appellant. Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order.

There is an apparent violation of the RTI Act. The same cannot be condoned. The PIO/SDM Alipur Shri Krishan Kumar is directed to explain his conduct by filing a written submission within 4 weeks of receipt of this order, the reasons of delay and as to why penal action should not be taken against him. Further action, if warranted shall be intimated in due course.

Y. K. Sinha

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Ved Prakash v. PIO/Dy. Commissioner (Rev. Dept.), Alipur (North Dist.), Alipur, Delhi PIO/SDM (NW), Dist. North West, Kanjhawala, Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/121887, Date of Decision: 03.01.2020