RTI application was treated as first appeal by the Appellate Authority - CIC: the Respondents to make a proper verification of RTI application and in case of delay, disciplinary action may be initiated against the officials concerned
26 Feb, 2014RTI application was treated as first appeal by the Appellate Authority - CIC: the Respondents to make a proper verification of RTI application, ascertain the date & find out if there is any inordinate delay; in case of delay, Public Authority may initiate disciplinary action against the officials concerned - Appellant: the Delhi High Court vide its order dt.9.10.2001 in Civil Writ No.248/1999 had remanded the case to the Addl. Collector with the direction to decide the appeal on merits; information on the status of the case has not been furnished - FAA: enquire about this file from the office of SDM(NG) and Collector/DC(SW) and if both these offices do not have such file, a new file will be constructed and put up for orders - CIC: If what is contended by Appellant is true, Respondent Authority had not only abdicated its duty under RTI Act, but also ignored Delhi High Court judgment - CIC: the PIO directed to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed against him
FACTS
Heard today dated 17.1.14. Appellant was represented by Shri Prem Chand Sharma and Shri Himanshu Sharma. Public Authority is represented by None.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 2.2.12 with the PIO, Dept. of Revenue, GNCTD. He stated that case No.2448/1999 pertaining to piece of land khasra no.29/5 was remanded by Hon’ble Delhi High Court for direct disposal by ADM (South West). He wanted to know whether the case is disposed of or pending before ADM. If disposed of, then date and case No. The Appellate Authority vide his order dt.23.2.12 stated that as per record available in the office of ADM, no such case has been heard and this fact was conveyed to the Appellant by the PIO vide his letter dt.24.12.11 and that no further orders are required. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant filed a second appeal dt.15.10.12 before CIC.
3. The Commission on perusal of documents on record noted that the RTI application dt.2.2.12 claimed by the Appellant was treated as first appeal by the Appellate Authority vide his order dt.23.2.12. According to the order of the Appellate Authority, the information was supplied by the PIO vide letter dt.24.12.11. It is not known the date on which RTI application was filed since the PIO’s letter dt.24.12.11 was not enclosed. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondent Public Authority to make a proper verification of RTI application, ascertain the date and find out if there is any inordinate delay. If delay is discovered, Public Authority may initiate disciplinary action against the officials concerned.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the Delhi High Court vide its order dt.9.10.2001 in Civil Writ No.248/1999 has set aside the order of Additional Collector and Financial Commissioner and remanded the case back to the Addl. Collector with the direction to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with the law. According to the Appellant, information on the status of the case has not been furnished. The Appellate Authority in his order has directed the reader of the ADM (SW) to enquire about this file from the office of SDM (NG) and Collector/DC(SW) and if both these offices do not have such file, thereafter, a new file will be constructed and put up for orders of Addl. Collector/ADM(SW) for fresh hearing. As per the contention of the Appellant, the case remanded by the HC was not taken on file because there was no file as revealed by the order of AA. From this it is very clear that the Respondent has not taken High Court order with the seriousness required and simply refused to give any information about it to the Appellant and also has impunity to tell that required information had been furnished which was obviously a wrong information. It is also clear from the record that new file was not constructed so far and fresh hearing did not commence. The Respondent did not respond to the hearing notice dated 1.1.14 which reveals lack of seriousness and responsibility on their part. If what is contended by Appellant (that orders of Delhi High Court not being implemented etc) is true, Respondent Authority had not only abdicated its duty under RTI Act, but also ignored Delhi High Court judgement. The CIC directs the PIO to furnish the information sought within a month from the date of receipt of this order to the Appellant and report the same to the Commission by 25th February 2014. The PIO who actually dealt with this RTI application is hereby directed to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed against him, which should reach the Commission by 25th February, 2014.
4. The appeal is disposed with the above direction.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Pradeep Kumar Vs. Revenue Dept., GNCTD in File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003419SA