Jump to content
  • Sign in to follow this  

    District collector should explain procedure of mutation


    rtiindia

    20140530-164316-60196614.jpg

     

    On asking for information regarding the mutation of title of the shop in the revenue records, the district collector has never made any effort to supply the needed information to the RTI applicant.

     

    CIC noted that it was the duty of the DC to explain the procedure by which mutation can be done and they should have forwarded the RTI application to the concerned PIO, instead of directing the applicant to file fresh application before the L&DO, Nirman Bhavan.

     

     

    Through his RTI application, the RTI applicant sought information regarding Nand Flower Shop located in the premises of Birla Mandir, Mandir Marg – regarding the mutation of title of that shop in the revenue records of the respondent office. PIO replied on 2982012. Being unsatisfied with the order of PIO the appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA Vide his order dated 1892012 disposed of the appeal with the observations that he should take up with Land & Development Office at Nirman Bhavan by filing a fresh application.

     

    CIC recorded that the authority was negligent until the date of the hearing of second appeal. Except asking the appellant for a copy of the 2nd appeal by a letter, which he is showing to the Commission, the respondent officer has never made any effort to supply the needed information to the appellant. It is the duty of the respondent authority to explain the procedure by which mutation can be done and they should have forwarded the RTI application to the concerned PIO, instead of directing the appellant to file fresh application before the L&DO, Nirman Bhavan.

     

    The authority was directed to supply information to the applicant explaining the procedure by which mutation can be done within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

     

    The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed for restricting the furnishing of the information which the appellant has a right to receiv

     

    The decision can be read here. The content of this case has been taken from the CIC decision available over CIC website. You can find many discussions on this issue at our forums. Please participate if you have questions! The link to forum is here.

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    The Supreme Court of India may be asked to collect information of cases, where plaintiff has got the stay but cases were not heard ever or still in the preliminary stage. It will help to reduce the no. of pending cases outstanding for years together. Reason being, plaintiff has no interest & such cases normally relates to PSUs/States /Govt. Institutions/Nigams or Central Govt. etc. The site is educative for citizen rights.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy