A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information regarding who is authority to work as Central Government u/s 3,5,16, and 19 of The FTDR Act, 1992 - Respondent: Deduction is not covered under the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act - CIC: No infirmity in the reply

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: Order is totally silent on the status of refund application; RTI application has been casually handled and the PIO did not appear before the CIC; SCN issued to Recovery Officer, DRT II, Ahmedabad the then PIO and the present PIO for imposing penalty

23 Aug, 2024

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.03.2023 seeking the following information:

“I, GUNGA KULSAMBEN SULEMANBHAI, Auction Purchaser of Auction ID:241106 being sale of property by the DRT-II, Ahmedabad, in the case of SBI vs. M/s. Sahiba Exports & Ors. (RP No.104/2021 in O.A. No.369/2019) Lot No.2, Property No.5657/10, Astha Residency, N.A. Plot No.27, Junagadh Road, Opp. Market Yard, Jetpur, District- Rajkot (Gujarat), hereby submits in the refund application matter that :-

I have been issued Form No.61, Certificate of Sale of Immovable Property on 05.07.2022 by the DRT-II, Ahmedabad.

DRT-II, Ahmedabad vide order dated 05.07.2022 has directed the Authorized Officer/ Branch Manager of the CH Bank to handover the physical and actual possession of the aforesaid property along with related documents and title deeds, if any, lying with them and obtain possession receipt. Thereafter only, the CH Bank is permitted to appropriate the sale proceeds lying with them against the loan account of the CD.

Sir, I am constantly requesting from 06.07.2022 via What’s app chat and Email to provide requisite/ related documents for execution of sale deed with the SRO to Bank. However, the Bank has failed to provide any documents or to deliver/handover actual physical possession of the property for more than 8 months without any valid reason and justification.

From the online digital platform of the Govt. of Gujarat, it is noticed that the aforesaid property bearing No.5657/10, Astha Residency, N.A. Plot No.27, Jetpur as mentioned at lot No.2 in the sale order/notice dated 22.02.2022 in sale certificate issued on 05.07.2022 in favor of me by the DRT-II, Ahmedabad has been sold by the CD No.2 Nilesh J. Savaj to third party, Shri Ashokbhai Nanjibhai Rabadiya on 22.07.2022 vide sale deed No.4792 registered with the SRO, Jetpur. The copy of sale deed No.4792 dated 22.07.2022 obtained through online platform is submitted.

it is pertinent to mention here that the CH BANK HAS ALSO INFORMED ME THAT IT HAS NOT APPROPRIATED THE SALE PROCEEDS AMOUNT AGAINST THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE CDs.

Since, the CH Bank has failed to handover/deliver actual physical possession of the property and execution of sale deed, and the CD No.2 has sold the property to third party, whose name is also transferred in government records, and therefore, the Auction Purchaser had vide applications filed on 4.9.2022, 07.11.2022, 17.01.2023 as well as personally attended on various dates requested the DRT-II, Ahmedabad to refund auction purchase consideration paid with interest and damages. However, till date, DRT-II, Ahmedabad has not responded to the applications filed or not passed any order for refund amount in the matter. It is, therefore, requested to please intimate the status of refund applications filed in the matter.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following ground:

“…Both CPIO & First Appellate Authority respectively have deliberately avoided to response the RTI application and appeal filed within stipulated time of 30 days under RTI Act.”

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Not present.

Both the parties were absent during hearing despite prior intimation. A copy of FAA’s order dated 30.04.2024 and CPIO’s reply dated 03.05.2024 in compliance to the FAA’s order has been filed by the Respondent without any supportive covering letter, the same is taken on record. For the sake of clarity:

Relevant extract of FAA’s order is as under:

“…The CPIO, DRT II Ahmedabad is hereby directed to dispose off the RTI application on merit as per the provisions of RTI Act within 7 days and copy of the same be marked to the Office of FAA for record.”

CPIO’s reply dated 03.05.2024 in compliance to the FAA’s order is as under:

“Your RTI Appeal application dtd.10.04.2024 decided by the First Appellate Authority, DRT- II, Ahmedabad Dtd.30.04.2024. The information under RTI Dtd.04.03.2024 filed by you information and seek regarding refund of purchase consideration due to not receive the possession of the property in question. The matter has been already decided by the Ld. Recovery Officer vide order Dtd.21.07.2023 a copy of the order is enclosed herewith for your perusal.”

Decision:

The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, is of the considered view that the reply provided by the Respondent is not found convincing and appears to be evasive in nature. This is evident from the fact that CPIO vide his reply dated 03.05.2024 vaguely intimated to the Appellant that case has already been decided by the Ld. Recovery Officer vide order dated 21.07.2023 In this regard, relevant portion of order dated 21.07.2023 are quoted below for reference:

“1. The application filed by CH Bank is hereby allowed and disposed of accordingly.

2. The Authorized Officer/Branch Manager of the CH Bank is hereby appointed as Court Commissioner for the purpose of taking physical possession of qua property.

3. The Court Commissioner will give one week advance notice to the third party to vacate the premises peacefully before proceeding to take possession. If the property is found locked after due notice to concerned third party/ occupant, the Court Commissioner would be entitled to break open the locks on the property by following due process of law. Inventory of items in the property be made and the Panchnama be drawn. Whole Process be videographed.

4. In case of any hindrance from any person/third party during process of physical possession, the Court Commissioner is hereby entitled to take necessary police assistance from the local Police station /Authorities. Further, Local Police Station / Authorities is also hereby directed to provide the necessary police assistance to the Court Commissioner, if demanded.

5. Besides above Court Commissioner is directed to serve a copy of this order to the concerned police station and third party by way of authorised modes of service and affix on the conspicuous part of the property at least two week prior to date so fixed for possession.

6. The registry is hereby directed to issue notice to show cause warrant of arrest, U/s. 25(b) against the CD No. 2.”

The Appellant has sought the status of her application regarding claim for refund, however, the order of Recovery Officer is totally silent on the aspect of the refund application which has been sought by the Appellant. The approach of the PIO shows that this RTI application has been casually handled. Moreover, the present CPIO did not appear before the Commission despite hearing notice having been served to him in advance which depicts that he/she did not have any regard to the RTI Act as well as the Commission.

In view of the above, Shri Prakash Meena, Recovery Officer, DRT II, Ahmedabad/ the then CPIO and the present CPIO are show caused as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the correct information and not appearing before the Commission despite notice. All the written explanations of the CPIOs (both present CPIO and the then CPIO) must be reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Meanwhile, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a revised updated information to the Appellant intimating the status of refund application after taking assistance from any other office/officer under Section 5(4) of RTI Act, if need be, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In doing so, the Respondent is directed to mask that portion of information which cannot be divulged as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Gunga Kulsamben Sulemanbhai v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, File No: CIC/DRABT/A/2023/626153; Date of Decision: 31.07.2024

CIC: Order is totally silent on the status of refund application; RTI application has been casually handled and the PIO did not appear before the CIC; SCN issued to Recovery Officer, DRT II, Ahmedabad the then PIO and the present PIO for imposing penalty

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.