Senior citizen gets relief through RTI
Panel awards compensation to settle excess stamp fee that he was forced to pay
A senior citizen who was forced to pay an excess stamp duty at the time of registering a property was awarded compensation by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), even after the Registration Department maintained that there was no provision to refund the extra fee levied. The commission held that records of dispatch produced by the registering authority appeared suspicious, and upheld the contention of the petitioner that there was no reply to his petition seeking clarification under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The case arises out of an appeal made by A. Ranganathan of Kundrathur, stating that the Sub-Registrar’s office had levied excess stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 13,300 for a registration done in May 2015, and that there was no reply to his petitions seeking details of the same under the RTI Act. Since there was no response from the first appellate authority in the Registration Department, he moved the TNSIC.
During the inquiry, the Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that a reply was sent within a month, but the petitioner denied having received any such communication. Although a copy of the dispatch register was produced in support of the claim that the reply was sent, the commission found that the entries appeared to be neither contemporaneous nor genuine.
On information that Mr. Ranganathan had moved the TNSIC, the authorities met him in-person and handed over a reply. After he refused to accept the reply, they sent a copy by registered post barely three days before the matter came up for inquiry.
‘No scope for refund’
It was seen from the records that the levy of stamp duty was excessive to the tune of Rs. 13,300, but the petitioner was informed that the amount could not be refunded since he had consented to making the payment under Section 41 of the Registration Act. The PIO reiterated during the inquiry that there was no provision to return the excess amount in these circumstances, and only departmental action could be taken against the official concerned.
Mr. Ranganathan represented that he was constrained to make the payment since he was told the document would not be registered otherwise. He further represented that he is 70 years old, illiterate and a heart patient, and the delay in getting the reply had caused him stress.
Taking these factors into account, and the fact that he attended the inquiry with the assistance of his son-in-law, State Chief Information Commissioner K. Ramanujam directed the authorities to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000 for the detriment caused to the septuagenarian by the delay in replying to his petition under the RTI Act. A decision on recovering the amount of compensation from the official responsible for dereliction of duty could be taken by the Inspector-General of Registrations.
No comments:
Post a Comment