CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003-SA
Complainant

Shri Harish Kumar Tyagi

Respondent

Sub Divisional Magistrate

(Civil Lines), GNCTD

Date of hearing

28.07.2015

Date of decision
Date of Adjunct Order

:
:

20-8-2015
07-09-2015

Information Commissioner

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu

(Madabhushi Sridhar)

Result

Penalty imposed.

1.

The complainant is present along with Mr. K.V.S.

Gupta, Advocate.

None represented Public authority.

FACTS
2. The Complainant filed this complaint for non-compliance of CIC order
CIC/AD/A/2012/001309 dated 4.9.2012 wherein the PIO was directed to
furnish a reply to the complainant within one week, regarding refusal of
the appellants RTI application dated 18-1-2012.

He should have also

invariably indicated to the appellant the name and address of the 1 st

Appellate Authority, to approach in first appeal.
3. It all began with refusal to accept the RTI application of Harish Kumar
Tyagi. Then he filed a complaint. There was no response. He was not
even informed the name and address of first appellate authority as
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jul 28, 2015 ... (Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066). File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003SA. Complainant.
www.rti.india.gov.in
www.rti.india.gov.in/cic.../CIC_AD_C_2013_001003-SA_T_163851.pdf
Page 1

mandated by RTI Act. He filed second appeal wherein CIC directed

disclosure of information within a week. That was also not implemented.
Another complaint was filed saying CIC order in 2012 was also not
implemented. The Commissioners changed over a period of time but the
PIOs attitude did not. When the case came up again, the CIC ordered on
30.9.2014 as under:
Commission recommends the Public Authority to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings against the PIO functioning during 2012 and the present PIO
for their reckless response to RTI application and negligence in complying
with the orders of CIC/FAA. The Commission directs Mr. Satish Chand, the
then PIO/SDM to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed
for non-compliance of the CIC order dt. 4-12-2012. The Commission also
directs the subsequent PIO Mr. Satinder Jain and the present PIO Mr.
Manish Jain to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for
non-compliance of the CIC order and the three FAA orders dated 19-122012, 28-1-2013 and 30-1-2013.
The explanations of the three PIOs
should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of
this order.

4. In response to show cause, on 01.12.2014 Mr. Manish Jain, SDM

submitted his explanation. He says that all the requisite information has
been provided to the appellant. This was strongly disputed. The PIO
claimed that he had instructed his subordinate staff to trace the file, but
no action was taken. He informed the appellant on 01.12.2014 that
lodging of FIR was under active consideration. He had not informed about
lodging of FIR or not given the certified copy of FIR. Regarding
reconstruction of the file and providing necessary information to the
appellant, there was no progress.
5. On 20.4.2015, the Commission directed the respondent authority to trace
the missing file or reconstruct the record and submit an action taken
report, within 45 days of receipt of this Order. The present case is
adjourned and penalty proceedings continued.

Proceedings before the Commission:

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jul 28, 2015 ... (Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066). File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003SA. Complainant.
www.rti.india.gov.in
www.rti.india.gov.in/cic.../CIC_AD_C_2013_001003-SA_T_163851.pdf
Page 2

6. The appellant was asking about order dated 06.04.2010 passed by

Revenue Assistant/SDM, Civil Line in the case of Ramphal & others vs.
Gram Sabha Kamalpur Majra, Burari. The appellant says his father was
joint bhoomidar with Mr. Ramphal of around 20 bighas of land in Delhi
which is worth around Rs 100 crore. He alleged that Revenue Authorities
put forward the files alleging that he surrendered the status of
bhoomidar on 03.06.1977 in favour of Mr. Ramphal. The appellant was
seeking certified copy of the surrender letter, which was not furnished.
Appellant needs this document to examine the witness before the
Revenue Court, where Ramphal is claiming to be an absolute owner.
Since 2012, January the appellant is waiting for the information.
7. The Commission observed that PIOs are using the defence of missing
file repeatedly to deny the information. Neither RTI Act nor the Public
Records Act provided for this defence of missing of file.

The core

function of Revenue department is to secure and maintain the key

records regarding land to ascertain the ownership and possession issues.
If such important orders or records of land revenue are missing it will be
difficult to ascertain and defend the right of ownership or possession of
the land. Surprisingly in this case the Revenue Trial Court is claiming that
a key file is missing. It will have a very serious impact not only on land
disputes but also of law and order issues. The appellant says he needs
this information to counter the contention made by his adversaries. By
denial of this, he is being prevented from realizing his legal right to his
fathers land.
8. The Commission posted this case to hear again, but Mr. Manish Jain was
absent. Based on facts and submissions the Commission concludes that
Mr. Manish Jain did not comply with the order of Commission dated
30.09.2014. The Commission concludes that Mr Manish Jain, as PIO has
not complied with the orders of CIC without any reasonable cause and
imposes a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 20 of RTI Act, on Mr.
Manish Jain.
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jul 28, 2015 ... (Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066). File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003SA. Complainant.
www.rti.india.gov.in
www.rti.india.gov.in/cic.../CIC_AD_C_2013_001003-SA_T_163851.pdf
Page 3

9. Mr. Sham Chand, Ex.PIO has submitted explanation in response to the

show cause notice dated 19.02.2014. He stated that he made efforts to
trace the file, but failed. He also mentioned that he did his best to lodge
FIR, but FIR could not be lodged. He did not answer whether lodging of
FIR was done before he relinquished charge of SDM (CL) & before his
retirement on 31.10.2014. FAA ordered him on 19.12.2012 to trace the
file, if file is not traceable; he was asked to lodge FIR with police station.
The order was with him since 19.12.2012 to 31.10.2014, which means
he had one year ten months at his disposal to either trace file or file an
FIR, which he did not chose to do.
10.
On 28.01.2013 the First Appellate Authority FAA issued another
order as follows:
a. Appeal taken up. Present Sh. Harish Kumar Tyagi, appellant and Sh.
Ramesh Chand, KGO on behalf of PIO/SDM (C.L.).
b. On 19.12.12 APIO was directed to trace out the file bearing No.
540/RA/Civil Lines/83/245 under which order dated 06.04.10 had
been passed by the then RA/SDM (C.L.) Sh. Nitya Nand.
c. In compliance of the said order Sh. Ramesh Chand, KGO submitted
a copy of letter dated 24.01.13 of SDM (C.L.) written to Chowki
Incharge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. SDM (CL) has taken action on the order
dated 19.12.12 very late. It shows his casual approach in dealing
with RTI matters. He is, therefore, warned to be more careful in
future and further directed to write to SHO, Subzi Mandi regarding
filing of FIR. Compliance be submitted within 15 days i.e. before
12.2.13. Appeal adjourned, to come up on 18.02.13 at 3.00 P.M.
11.

Though he was warned to be careful by FAA, he did not do anything

till 31.10.2014. After considering his explanation with sympathy as he is

a retired officer, the Commission finds his explanation not satisfactory, as
he was having ample time to at least file the First Information Report,
i.e., a complaint before a police station, and initiate measures to
develop/reconstruct an alternative file, which was not done. Hence, the
Commission finds this is also a fit case to impose penalty, as this PIO has
deliberately not complied with the orders of FAA, though he has ample
time and opportunity, without any reasonable cause. The Commission
imposes maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on him.
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jul 28, 2015 ... (Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066). File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003SA. Complainant.
www.rti.india.gov.in
www.rti.india.gov.in/cic.../CIC_AD_C_2013_001003-SA_T_163851.pdf
Page 4

12.

The appellant said that his land was about 20 bighas and 20 vishas

in extent having value of around Rs. 100 crore, the record of which was
claimed to have lost from their Revenue Trial Court. He suspects that if
the file was really missing, it was not an accident but deliberate strategy
to deprive him of his ownership share in the land.

If file was lost

inadvertently or for any other reason, nothing could have prevented SDM
from inquiring into immediately and taking quick decision to lodge FIR
and reconstruct the file. Keeping in view the high value of the land, and
submissions of the officers, the Commission notices that two successive
PIOs, of rank of SDM (RDM), having executive powers, were not
performing their statutory duties both capacity as SDM and also as PIO.
13.
The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of
Rs.25,000/- each from the salary payable to Mr. Manish Jain and Mr.
Sham Chand (to be informed to concerned Pension Department from
recovery) by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of PAO CAT in 5
equal monthly installments.

The first installment should reach the

Commission by 30.09.2015 and the last installment should reach by

30.02.2016.
Joint

The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S. P. Beck,

Secretary

Information

&

Addl.

Commission,

Registrar,
B-Wing,

Room

2nd

No.

Floor,

302,
August

Central
Kranti

Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy

(Babu Lal)
Deputy Registrar
Addresses of the parties:
1
The CPIO under RTI,
Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil Lines),
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jul 28, 2015 ... (Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066). File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003SA. Complainant.
www.rti.india.gov.in
www.rti.india.gov.in/cic.../CIC_AD_C_2013_001003-SA_T_163851.pdf
Page 5

Room No. 27-28, Old Civil Supply Building,

2nd Floor, Tis Hazari Courts Complex,
Delhi-110054.
2

Shri Harish Kumar Tyagi,

Chamber No. 471, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

The First Appellate Authority/ADM(Civil Lines)

Room No. 27-28, Old Civil Supply Building,
2nd Floor, Tis Hazari Courts Complex,
Delhi-110054.

Shri S.P.Beck, JS(Admin), CIC

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jul 28, 2015 ... (Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 066). File No.CIC/AD/C/2013/001003SA. Complainant.
www.rti.india.gov.in
www.rti.india.gov.in/cic.../CIC_AD_C_2013_001003-SA_T_163851.pdf
Page 6