Central Information Commission
Mr.Ranjan Sharma vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 19 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003467/11043
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003467
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma
82-Arsh Complex,
Alfa-I, Greater Noida,
District-Gautam Budh Nagar, (UP.)
Respondent (1) : Ms. Anita Satia
PIO/DDE (District South) Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Defence Colony, New Delhi.
(2) Mr. Lakhan Lal, Vice Principal, Government Boys Sr. Secondary School, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Chirag Delhi, New Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 30/09/2010 PIO replied : No reply First appeal filed on : 01/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 18/11/2010 Second Appeal received on : 09/12/2010 Information Sought:
Information is sought with respect to GBSSS, Chirag Delhi.
1. Copy of the diary and dispatch register from January 2008 to September 2010.
Reply of the PIO:
No reply.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply from the PIO even after the lapse of 30 days.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO to provide correct and complete information as required by the appellant before 20/11/2010 free of cost.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response from the PIO after the order of FAA. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma;
Respondent : Ms. Anita Satia, PIO/DDE (District South); Mr. Lakhan Lal, Vice Principal, GBSSS, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi;
The Appellant has sought information relating to the Government School which is a Public Authority by itself. The PIO has erred in sending the RTI application to the Education Officer. The RTI application should have been sent directly to the concerned school under Section 6(3) of the RTI Ac. The RTI reached the Head of the School on 06/11/2010 and the APIO of the School claims that he sent the information to the Appellant on 24/11/2010 by professional courier. However, the Appellant states that he has not received this information and the Respondent is not able to produce any evidence to show that the information was actually delivered to the Appellant. The PIO of the School Mr. Lakhan Lal has brought the information with him which has now been provided to the Appellant before the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. Lakhan Lal, Vice Principal within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. Lakhan Lal, Vice Principal will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 January, 2011. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 19 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VMK)