Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Shri Ashok Kumar Chirvi v. Pio, O/o Of The Dy. Commissioner, Budgam And Others

Shri Ashok Kumar Chirvi v. Pio, O/o Of The Dy. Commissioner, Budgam And Others

(Central Information Commission)

Second Appeal No. CIC/RDUJK/A/2021/625002 CIC/PWDJK/A/2021/626601 CIC/RDUJK/A/2021/624314 CIC/HMDJK/A/2021/638821 | 12-12-2022

Y.K. Sinha, Chief Information Commissioner

Information sought and background of the case:

(1) CIC/RDUJK/A/2021/625002

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2021 seeking information related to non-finalization of 25 year old rent case of "Chirvi's Destiny" Building at Sanat Nagar, Srinagar Kashmir occupied by Central Security Forces 17 July 1996 on the following 02 points:-


2. The CPIO, Deputy Commissioner Office replied as under:-


3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(2) CIC/PWDJK/A/2021/626601

5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2020 seeking information about a long standing dispute related to non-finalization of a 25 year old rent case of "Chirvi's Destiny" Building at Sanat Nagar, Srinagar Kashmir occupied by Central Security Forces since 17 July 1996 on the following 07 points:-


6. Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

7. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

8. A written submission dated 01.12.2022 has been received from the O/o EE(R&B) Division, Chadoora containing the following statements:

(3) CIC/RDUJK/A/2021/624314

9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2020 seeking information related to non-finalization of 25 year old rent case of "Chirvi's Destiny Building at Sanat Nagar, Srinagar Kashmir occupied by Central Security Forces since 17 July 1996 on the following 05 points:-


10. Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

11. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(4) CIC/HMDJK/A/2021/638821

12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2020 seeking information related to non-finalization of 25 year old rent case of "Chirvi's Destiny" Building at Sanat Nagar, Srinagar Kashmir occupied by Central Security Forces since 17 July 1996 (copy not enclosed).

13. The CPIO, J&K Range Police HQ, Srinagar, vide letter dated 13.03.2020 replied as under:-

14. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2021 which was adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.05.2021 as under:


15. Still not satisfied with the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

16. Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. All the relevant parties were duly heard through video conference and deliberations between the various parties revealed that the main cause of dispute is not the non dissemination of information under the RTI Act, instead the Appellant is aggrieved at the incorrect assessment of rental value of his property as done by the Rent Assessment Committee at Rs. 7200/- per month.

Decision:

17. Perusal of records of the appeals and averments made by the parties indicate that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and as held by the public authority, with respect to the queries raised by the Appellant, has been duly provided by the Respondents. The plea of the Appellant as stated by him during the course of hearing is for fair assessment of rental value of his property, viz. Chirvi's Destiny. The Commission has repeatedly held in various decisions that the scope and ambit of the RTI Act is limited to ensuring that information held by the public authority is disclosed to the information seeker, as permissible under the. The jurisdiction of this Commission, as envisaged under the RTI Act does not include redressal of grievances, settling of disputes etc.

18. It is pertinent to note that the Courts of law have also pronounced their decisions in this regard. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Arvindlal Ambalal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Appeal No. 12223/2015 decided on 31.07.2015 had held as follows in this regard:

"...the prayers prayed for in this petition cannot be granted. There cannot be any action in a matter like the present one by the respondent authorities pursuant to an RTI application, at the instance of a person like the present petitioner. At the most, under the RTI proceedings, the petitioner can ask for some information, but, cannot demand any action...."

Emphasis supplied

19. It is also noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No. 2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No. 210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No. 2675 of 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No. 210 of 2012 had held as under:

"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the on the Information Commissions."

20. Thus in the light of the above discussion, it is held that the issue with respect to rent assessment as sought by the Appellant in the above appeals is not for the Commission to adjudicate under the provisions of the RTI Act. However, considering the persistent pursuit by the Appellant about the same cause of action, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this decision to the Chief Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir for taking appropriate action in satisfactorily resolving the issue about proper rent assessment of the Appellant's property, thereby obviating the need for filing multiple RTI applications on the same subject.

21. The appeals are disposed off accordingly, with no further direction.

Advocate List
Bench
  • Y.K. Sinha, Chief Information Commissioner
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/CIC/2022/305
Head Note

Right to Information (RTI) — Information sought — Non-finalization of 25-year-old rent case — Appellant sought information about the rent assessment of his property, which was occupied by Central Security Forces since 1996 — Held, the issue of rent assessment is not for the RTI Commission to adjudicate — However, a copy of the decision was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir, for taking appropriate action to resolve the issue — RTI Act, 2005, S. 2(f)\n\n(Paras 10, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)