Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001875/14135 Penalty and Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001875. Case: Mr. Muralidhar Tiwari Vs Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi the then Licensing Inspector (City Zone) presently UDC, Central Establishment Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Central Information Commission
|Case Number:||Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001875/14135 Penalty and Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001875|
|Party Name:||Mr. Muralidhar Tiwari Vs Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi the then Licensing Inspector (City Zone) presently UDC, Central Establishment Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi|
|Judges:||Shailesh Gandhi, I.C.|
|Issue:||Right to Information Act|
|Judgement Date:||September 15, 2011|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
Shailesh Gandhi, I.C.
The information sought:
1. The Appellant had sought information regarding
1. I request you that How many Tehbazari have been allotted by the MCD. Which Policy though has been allotted Please provide me name of the allotee, name of the father, name of the place Tehbazari, site number with whole these information of photocopies.
2. How many people are placed directly allotment on Tehbazari place and how many people are transferred to Tehbazari Please provide me name of the allottee, name of the father, name of the place Tehbazari, site number with whole information of photocopies.
3. Above how many people like that who has sold his Tehbazari and who has purchased and provide the information above seller and buyer.
4. Till now how many Tehbazari sellers have given application for mutation in MCD In which how many mutation was passed and how many sellers applications are in pending yet Tell me what is the problem in pending case Plz provide me information in written.
5. The people have been mutation provide the name of all people, name of father, address of his house, place of Tehbazari, site No. etc. with whole these information of photocopies. and given by them Evidences, Power of Attorney,
2. We are informed you about your RTI that you can come on any working day for survey of files and you will need any papers. We will be provided the photocopies of papers.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
3. Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
4. The PIO is directed to furnish the reply to the Appellant within a period of seven days and fine of Rs 1000/- is imposed on the concerned official which should be recovered from his salary.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
5. Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 August 2011:
6. The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Muralidhar Tiwari;
Respondent: Mr. Ram Karan, Deemed PIO & Zonal Superintendent;
7. The Appellant had filed RTI application on 22/02/2011 and 23/02/2011 No. information was sent to the Appellant. When the Appellant filed the first appeal the FAA has noted Mr. Rajesh Mangal, RC has attended on behalf of PIO. The First Appellate Authority gave an order on 19/05/2011...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL