Appellant sought a copy of a sale deed - PIO: Copy of Sale deed is not available - CIC expressed displeasure on the conduct of the PIO and directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct - CIC: Allow inspection of documents

Information sought:

The Appellant sought information regarding copy of sale deed dated 12/03/1992 and registered vide diary no. 1011 dated 13/03/1992.

Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21-06-2018 which was also not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submissions have been received from APIO/SUB REGISTRAR-VIIA, OFFICE OF THE E-SUB-REGISTRAR Vll-A, SAROJINI NAGAR, GNCTD, vide letter dated 08.04.2021, as under:

Hon’ble Sir,

This is with reference to your notice for Hearing for Appeal / Complaint dated 23/03/2021 on the above cited subject.

In this regard, it is submitted that the required document i.e. Copy of Sale deed dated 12^th March 1992 is not available in this office as prior to 13/08/2015, the registration of properties of this area was earlier done in Sub-Registrar IX, Kapashera, New Delhi. 

Submitted for consideration of the Hon’ble Commission, under the provision of RTI Act.

A written submission has been received from the Appellant for perusal before the Commission.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: present on VC

Respondent: Mahendra Singh, Rep. of PIO, Sub Registrar-VIIA, O/o E-SubRegistrar VIIA, present in person.

Appellant stated that he has not received any reply from the PIO till date. Rep. of PIO submitted that present PIO has recently assumed the charge of PIO. He further submitted that relevant information pertains to Sub Registrar-IX and must be available with them.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing takes into account the submission of the appellant and observes that neither any reply nor instant RTI Application was forwarded to the concerned branch by then PIO as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Therefore, Commission expresses displeasure on such a conduct of then PIO, Sub RegistrarVIIA. Then PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. PIO is further directed to send copy of supporting documents on which he relies upon in his submission as well as copy of reply sent on the RTI Application, if any. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the said conduct, the PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of the PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO.

Now, with regards to information sought in the instant RTI Application, Commission directs the PIO, Sub Registrar-VIIA to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant documents sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. In case relevant records pertains to Sub Registrar-IX, Kapashera or any other Section/branch or department then PIO, Sub Registrar-VIIA must procure the same from the concerned office the said documents and arrange them for said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant after redacting/blacking-out third-party information. Further, the relevant information must be provided subject to payment of the prescribed fees by the appellant as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. Commission’s direction should be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order and a compliance report should be sent to the Commission by PIO enumerating the details of documents inspected and copy of documents provided to the Appellant.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ishwer Chand alias Ishwer Aggarwal v. Office of the District Magitrate, Office of the Special Secretary-(Revenue), Revenue Department, Government of NCT of Delhi in Second Appeal No.: CIC/REVDP/A/2019/603997, Date of Decision: 16-04-2021