Present:- 1. Sh. Mohammad Ramzan Sheikh, Tehsildar Sopore 2. Sh. Farooq Ahmad, Asstt. PIO, Divisional Commissioner s Office Kashmir

Transcription

1 File No. SIC-K/SA/06/2014 Decision No. SIC-K/SA/06/2014/59 Title: Sh. Sunil Kumar, v/s FAA/PIO, S/o Lt. Kashi Nath Dass O/o Dy. Commissioner, R/o Pratapgarh Jammu Baramulla (Appellant) (Respondents) Present:- 1. Sh. Mohammad Ramzan Sheikh, Tehsildar Sopore 2. Sh. Farooq Ahmad, Asstt. PIO, Divisional Commissioner s Office Kashmir Srinagar Background of this Appeal is that Shri Sunil Kumar s/o Late Kashi Nath filed an RTI application dated before PIIO Office of Divisional Commissioner Kashmir seeking following information: - 1. Does the permission granted by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir vide his order No. 250 DIVK of 2004 dated to alienate 14 m from Kh No. 206 registered as aabadi deh in revenue records allow

2 revenue official to register an intekaal in the name of Dleep Kumar or anybody else. 2. Is the intekaal No registered in the name of Dleep Kumar and others (copy attached) a Fraud and contradicts your permission. 3. What action u/r will be initiated and when against all those officials who have signed this intekaal if it is a fraud intekaal. 4. Since in the absence of any revenue record that could provide that Dleep Kumar and others have 14 marls under his possession/control from Kh. No. 206, could Dleep Kumar sell on his own 14 marlas from Kh. No Please provide me the photostate copy of attorney issued by the Dleep Kumar and others regarding the sale of my possessed 14 marlas from Kh. No. 206 alongwith copy of intekhab and Farad (map) of 14 marlas from Kh. No. 206 necessary for alienation and sale registration. 6. Could Dleep Kumar and others well 14 marlas on their own from Kh. No. 206 without taking into confidence the other stakeholder i.e. the applicant even though Dleep Kumar had nothing in Kh. No. 206 under his control. This RTI application has been transferred by APIO with Divisional Commissioner Kashmir to PIO Office of the Deputy Commissioner Baramulla on asking to take necessary action under the Act with copy marked to the information seeker as well. This RTI application has further been transferred by PIO/ACR Baramulla to Tehsildar Sopore (PIO)

3 under letter dated advising him to furnish requisite information to the information seeker with copy to the information seeker. Thereafter First Appeal has been filed before FAA Office of Divisional Commissioner Kashmir dated This Appeal has been disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner s Office on by informing the appellant to approach the concerned public authority i.e. Deputy Commission Baramulla as per provisions of Section 16(1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly the appellant has filed First Appeal before Deputy Commission Baramulla on on the basis of advice given by the office of Divisional Commissioner Kashmir. Thereafter Second Appeal was received in the Commission on on the grounds that information has not been received by the appellant till date from the PIO. In response to the notice of the Commission dated , the appellant filed his objection enclosing photocopies of Divisional Commissioner s order No. 250/Divk of 2004 dated on the subject sale permission case of Smt. Nirmala (wife) Sh. Dilip Kumar (son) and Ssurekha (daughter) of Late Niranjan Nath Residents of Edipora, Bomai Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla at present Gangyal Jammu through Attorney holder namely Haji Abdul Rashid Dar son of Mohammad Ramzan Dar R/o Wadoora Tehsil Sopore and order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner Baramulla as FAA under RTI Act 2009 titled Smt Vijay Shorie Wd/o Late Kashi Nath C/o Medi Linker Amar Vidya Market 51-

4 Partapgarh Jammu Tawi. On the basis of these two orders, the appellant has highlighted and questioned certain contradictions in these orders. From order of the ADC/FAA dated referred to above it was evident that it pertains to an appeal of Smt. Vijay Shorie wd/o Late Kashi Nath and not to this RTI application and appeal filed by appellant before ADC Baramulla and therefore it is not relevant to the appeal under reference. In response to the notice of the Commission dated , Tehsildar Sopore (PIO) vide letter No /OQ/Spr dated has sent response to the queries of the RTI application to appellant as under: - 1. No, refer column 6 of alienation order vide 250 Divk of 2004 dated para (c) enclosed. 2. Yes, it contradicts the directions of worthy Divisional Commissioner. 3. Appellate Authority has the power to initiate action against eh officials/officers in case of the intekal be provided fraud. 4. Since as per the contents of para 4, applicant himself states that the area measuring 14 marlas under survey No. 206 was not actually under Dileep Kumar s control, so in that condition Dileep Kumar could not sell the same without its possession and in absence of revenue records. 5. Since the sale deed papers remain with the buyer, so photostate copies of the same cannot be had from this office. 6. As per the contents of para 6, applicant states that the land in question under survey No. 206 min, 14 marlas was not under the control of Dileep Kumar. Then accordingly in these circumstances Dileep Kumar could not sell the same.

5 Subsequently vide letter dated Tehsildar Sopore has informed the appellant in continuation of letter dated that information in respect of Point NO. 5 is 3rd Party information. Tehsildar submitted that above responses have been sent through registered post to the appellant. In the RTI application, the appellant has essentially asked questions seeking justifications except for Pont No. 5. Similarly in his counter reply dated , he has again sought justification/answer to question. However, crux of the RTI application appears to be grievance for alleged illegal sale of land. It is pertinent to refer to the case of Goa Bench of Bombay High Court W.P. No. 419 of 2007 dated titled Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission, wherein the Hon ble Court has held that:- Definition of information under Section 2(i) of Central Act (Section 2-d of J&K RTI Act) cannot include within its fold answers to the questions why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Court has further held that justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information. In so far as information to query 5 is concerned, the appellant has sought copy of attorney issued by one Dleep Kumar, which is a 3 rd Party information under section 11 of the Act. This Section of the Act provides, among others, that disclosure may be allowed if the public interest of the

6 disclosures outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such 3 rd party. The appellant in the instant case has not made any bonafide public interest in seeking he information. Therefore the Commission is of the view that appellant has not established that information sought for is for larger public interest. That being the case, the response to query 5 is exempted from disclosure for reasons stated above. Copy to the:- Sd/- (Nazir Ahmed) State Information Commissioner 1. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla (FAA). 3. PIO/Tehsildar Sopore. 4. Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Kashi Nath Dass C/o Medi Linker, Amar Vidya Market, 51-Pratapgarh, Jammu (Mohammad Shafi) Deputy Registrar, J&K State Information Commission