CIC: No reply to the RTI Application about Relinquishment Deed has been given; Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance - CIC expressed severe displeasure on the conduct of the PIO and issued SCN

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 29.01.2023 seeking the following information:

“On 09 September 2021 at the Office of Sub-registrar VI-A floor Ambedkar Bhavan sector-16 Rohini Delhi Relinquishment Deed S .No. 17796 had been submitted. On 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. September 2021 Office of Sub registrar under letter No.SRVI-A/Pitampura/2021/1613 had requested the Assistant engineer North Delhi MCD to seek the status of property G-115 Ashok Vihar Phase-1 Delhi 110052. According to PIO North MCD Assistant Engineer has sent a reply to the Sub- Registrar vide letter No. EE(B)- II/KPZ/2021/1269 dated 09/11/2021.I have attached the official RTI response from the PIO.

I still have not got the Relinquishment Deed even after 1.5 years. Therefore I want the below information from you:

1. What is the status of Relinquishment Deed S. No. 17796. I have attached Relinquishment Deed Slip for reference.

2. As per the official RTI response PIO clearly states that the Assistant Engineer has sent the response to Sub-registrar stating letter no. EE(B)- II/KPZ/2021/1269. Then why Sub-registrar office is saying they have not received it.

3. If the Sub-Registrar office has not received the letter then what steps has their office taken to get another response from Assistant Engineer.

4. What is the time limit for Sub-registrar to get the Relinquishment Deed in a normal process.

5. What is the reason for the delay in this particular case.

6. In how many months I can expect the process to get completed and get the Relinquishment Deed.

7. Where should I complain if I am not getting the Relinquishment Deed from the Sub-Registrar office even after all the process has been followed by me.”

2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

4. The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Absent.

5. Both the parties remained absent despite being served the hearing notice in advance.

Decision:

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that no reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant as per available records. Further the Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance. Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the concerned CPIO for neither providing any reply qua the instant RTI Application nor participated in the hearing and therefore he/she is being called to show cause. The act of the concerned CPIO, tramples upon the citizen’s right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In view of the above, inaction on his/her part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to concerned CPIO. The CPIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him 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 for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

7. In the meantime, the Commission directs the concerned CPIO to examine the instant RTI Application and provide pointwise information to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

8. The FAA shall ensure compliance with this order.

9. A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of this order is received by the erring CPIO. The FAA is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the erring CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which proceedings will be held ex-parte and decision passed. The FAA shall inform the Commission the name/names of the CPIO at the relevant time who was/were supposed to give reply to the Appellant and the name of CPIO who did not appear in the hearing.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Prateek Goyal v. Office of the SDM (Alipur), CIC/REVDP/A/2023/619175; Date of Decision : 30.04.2025