Central Information Commission
Manoj Kumar Agrawal vs Directorate Of Education on 10 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/119851
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/119856
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/133518
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/135183
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/136317
Shri Manoj Kumar Agrawal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
With Smt. Neeru Aggarwal
VERSUS/ बनाम
...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (Zone-IV),
Directorate of Education, North East Dist.
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi
Nodal PIO/Dy. Director of Education, N/E,
Directorate of Education, RTI Cell, Yamuna
Vihar, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Director of Education (HQ), RTI
Branch, Old Secretariat, Delhi
PIO/Asst. Director of Education (East),
Directorate of Education, Anand Vihar,
Delhi
Through: Sh. Rajeev Kumar, DDE, Zone-iv
PIO/Sh. Rajesh Joshi, ADE, DDE, East, D-Block
Smt. Neha Shankari, I?C RTI Branch, DDE, NE,
B-Block
Sh. Manoj Kumar, OS, RTI HQ
Sh. Devender Kumar, Sr. Asstt. (GOC)
Date of Hearing : 09.12.2019
Date of Decision : 10.12.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO
Page 1 of 7
on Appeal
119851 04.09.2017 11.10.2017 07.11.2017 06.12.2017
119856 08.09.2017 09.10.2017 06.11.2017 06.12.2017
133518 05.12.2017 27.12.2017 22.01.2018 26.02.2018
135183 27.11.2017 04.01.2018 29.01.2018 27.02.2018
136317 04.12.2017 15.12.2017 22.01.2018 26.02.2018
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/119851
Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2017 seeking information on 4
points;
1. How many surprise visits were made to Gyan Deep Vidya Bhawan, Sr.
Sec. School, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in last five years? Provide details of the
irregularities found during those visits and action taken on them.
2. Provide details of audits conducted at the above mentioned school,
irregularities found and action taken on them.
3. (i) Whether the proposal by the above said school for fee hike for the
sessions 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 was acceded to or the school was
authorized for fee hike?
(ii) Provide copy of proposal mentioned in 3(i) and authorization letter
issued by the Department. Etc
4. (i) Provide inspection of Master Register for the sessions 2013-2014 to
2016-2017
(ii) Provide inspection of Moving Register, Complaint & Suggestion Book
and appointment letters of teacher and staff for the sessions 2010-
2011 to 2015-2016. Etc
PIO/DDE (Zone-IV), vide letter dated 11.10.2017 furnished point wise reply to
the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 07.11.2017. FAA vide order dated 06.12.2017 directed the PIO to provide
a revised reply to question no. 1,2,3 (123) 4(i) to the Appellant within a week
free of cost.
In compliance with the FAO, Section officer (RT)), Dist. North East, vide letter
dated 27.12.2017 provided reply to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Respondent submits that information as available with them has already been provided to the Appellant. A reply in compliance with the FAO has also been sent to the Appellant within the specified time limit. Appellant is aggrieved over the non receipt of any material information in respect to query no. 4(i), as was also directed by the FAO. Appellant expresses his desire to inspect the Master register maintained by the school for the year 2013-2017. Appellant relies on the bundle of certified copies of the Master register pertaining to some other year, provided by the Respondent public authority after allowing inspection of the records. It is the submission of the Appellant that the copies of Master register, as earlier provided to him, do not contain any third party information and hence it should again be provided to him for the year 2013-17.
Page 2 of 7Respondent agrees to provide necessary assistance required for conducting inspection of the desired records by the Appellant.
Decision:
Commission is inclined to make an observation that, instead of simply stating in response to RTI application that the information sought is not available with them, it is imperative for the public authority, under Sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act, to transfer the RTI application or part of it, to the actual custodian of information, when the information sought is not available with them. The Commission hereby warns the PIOs to be more diligent and refrain from engaging in conduct that is in violation of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, both the parties have agreed for inspection of records. The Commission hereby directs Sh. Rajeev Kumar and through him the concerned PIO to provide inspection of complete records pertaining to the Master register for the year 2013-17, as sought by the Appellant in query no. 4
(i) of the RTI application, on 09.01.2020 at 11:00 am. Upon identification of relevant documents by the Appellant, copies of documents upto 50 pages shall to be provided to him, free of cost and thereafter at Rs. 2/- per page, as per the RTI Act. The PIO is further directed to ensure that the copies of documents thereof do not contain any third party information and is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. A Compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 24.01.2020, with a copy marked to the Appellant. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action by the Commission.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DIREC/A/2018/119856 Appellant filed RTI application dated 08.09.2017 seeking information on 04 points pertaining to his letters dated 12.07.2017, 10.8.2017 and 25.08.2017
2. When was action on complaint dated 12.07.2017 initiated by the complaint in charge appointed by the Department and submitted his report. Provide copy of the report in whichever format it is submitted.
3. Provide details of action taken on complaint dated 10.08.2017 till date.
4. Provide details of competent authorities to whom complaint dated 25.08.2017 was forwarded and action taken by them on the same.
5. Provide details of recognized schools that are running pre-schools in their campuses and rules under which such schools are bring run?
PIO/DDE (Zone-IV), vide letter dated 09.10.2017 informed the Appellant that his complaints were under investigation Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.11.2017. FAA vide order dated 06.12.2017 directed the PIO to provide revised reply to the Appellant within 10 days.
In compliance with the FAO, SO, District, North-East, Dte.of Edu. vide letter dated 04.01.2018, forwarded the reply of PIO/DDE (Zone-IV), dated 20.12.2017 to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 7Facts emerging during the course of hearing: Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Respondent submits that in response to the RTI application and in compliance with the FAO, the Appellant was informed, vide reply dated 09.10.2017 and 20.12.2017, respectively, that pursuant to his complaints the matter was under investigation.
Appellant is aggrieved over the non receipt of any status report from the Respondent over the complaints made by him, as referred to in the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the findings of this case, the Commission hereby directs Sh. Rajeev Kumar and through him the concerned PIO to provide a latest status report on the investigation conducted by the Respondent pursuant to the complaints made by the Appellant, as referred to in the RTI application. This detailed status report must bring out the factual position of the complaints made by the Appellant and provide answers to the queries raised in the RTI application. This report shall be provided to the Appellant by the concerned PIO, under intimation to the Commission, within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/133518 Appellant filed RTI application dated 05.12.2017 seeking information on 05 points;
1. Provide daily progress report on complaints dated 12.07.2017, 10.08.2017, 25.08.2017, 28.09.2017 and 04.10.2017.
2. Maximum time required to initiate action on the above complaints as per rules.
3. Provide names of the officers who were to initiate action but they either did not initiate any action or delayed it. Etc Dissatisfied over no reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.01.2018.
In the mean time, PIO/DDE (Zone-IV), vide letter dated 15.02.2018 furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant.
FAA vide order dated 26.02.2018 directed the PIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant within 10 days of the receipt of his order. In compliance with the FAO, PIO/DDE (Zone-IV), vide letter dated 03.03.2018 furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Respondent submits that in response to the RTI application and in compliance with the FAO, the Appellant was informed vide reply dated 15.02.2018 and Page 4 of 7 03.03.2018, respectively, that pursuant to his complaints the matter was under investigation.
Appellant is aggrieved over non receipt of any status report from the Respondent over the complaints made by him, as referred to in the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the findings of this case, the Commission hereby directs Sh. Rajeev Kumar and through him the concerned PIO to provide a latest status report on the investigation conducted by the Respondent pursuant to the complaints made by the Appellant, as referred to in the RTI application. This detailed status report must bring out the factual position of the complaints made by the Appellant and provide answers to the queries raised in the RTI application. This report shall be provided to the Appellant by the concerned PIO, under intimation to the Commission, within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/135183 Appellant filed RTI application dated 27.11.2017 seeking information on 08 points;
1. Duties, obligations and specialties of the Department u/s 4 (1) (b)(i)
2. Powers and duties of the officers of the Department u/s 4 (1) (b)(ii)
4. Standard set by the Department for discharge of duties of the Department u/s 4 (1) (b)(iii). Etc APIO/(HQ), Directorate of Edu., vide letter dated 04.01.2018 forwarded the reply of SO(SB) dated 27.12.2017 to the Appellant whereby information sought was denied under section 2(f) for being clarificatory in nature.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 29.01.2018. FAA vide order dated 27.02.2018 stated that information may please be given to the Appellant In compliance of the FAA order, PIO/HQ), vide letter dated 19.03.2018 furnished the reply to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant complains that the reply provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory.
Respondent reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal. Respondent is carrying Dixit's School Manual to establish that the information sought by the Appellant is contained therein.
Decision:
The appeal pertains to enforcement of section 4 (1)(b) of the RTI Act, which is a vital element of law in achieving the objective of the RTI Act as described in its Page 5 of 7 preamble i.e. to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
Section 4 (2) of the RTI Act states that it shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
Commission notes that PIO in its reply dated 15.03.2018 has referred the Dixit's School Manual to the Appellant for responses of his queries. While the same does provide an insight on the workings and duties of the officials but it is merely generic in nature. The intent behind Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act is to proactively make available as much information as possible, held by or under the control of the public authority.
Commission notes that the RTI tab on official website of the Directorate of Education, exhibiting information under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, displays orders /circulars uploaded in the year 2014. In view of the forgoing, while setting aside the reply of the PIO, denying information for not being covered under Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent public authority to update its web page at the earliest and thereafter at regular intervals with the latest information and details of its department for the ease of common man.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/136317 Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.12.2017 seeking information on 07 points;
1. Duties, obligations and specialties of the Department u/s 4 (1) (b)(i)
2. Powers and duties of the officers of the Department u/s 4 (1) (b)(ii)
4. Standard set by the Department for discharge of duties of the Department u/s 4 (1) (b)(iii). Etc PIO/Asst. Director of Education (East), vide letter dated 15.12.2017 stated that the information sought in point no. 1-8 is not specific and advised the Appellant to visit www.edudel.nic.in. and for point no. 9 his application has been transferred to Distt. North East, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.01.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.02.2018 directed the PIO to provide the revised reply to question no. 1,2 & 8 to the Appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order.
Feeling aggrieved over the non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal Respondent submits that the information as available with them has already been given to the Appellant. Respondent maintains that any information Page 6 of 7 beyond what has already been provided to the Appellant is not available with them, hence cannot be provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
It is surprising that while the FAA has directed the Respondent to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, the Respondent, present for the hearing, submits that no additional information is available with them than what has already been provided to the Appellant. If that was the case, the Respondent should have sought this defence before the FAA.
It is to be noted that, the present appeal pertains to enforcement of section 4 (1)(b) of the RTI Act, which is a vital element of law in achieving the objective of the RTI Act as described in its preamble i.e. to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
Section 4 (2) of the RTI Act states that it shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
Commission notes that PIO in its reply dated 15.12.2017 advised the Appellant to visit www.edudel.nic.in for resolution of his queries. While the same does provide an insight on the workings and duties of the officials but it is merely generic in nature. The intent behind Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act is to proactively make available the as much information as possible, held by or under the control of the public authority.
Commission notes that the RTI tab on official website of the Directorate of Education, exhibiting information under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, displays orders /circulars uploaded in the year 2014. In view of the forgoing, while setting aside the reply of the PIO, denying information for not being covered under Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent public authority to update its web page at the earliest and thereafter at regular intervals with the latest information and details of its department for the ease of common man.
As regards query no. 9, the Commission hereby directs PIO/Sh. Rajesh Joshi, ADE to provide a revised reply to the Appellant. The Commission grants opportunity to PIO/Sh. Rajesh Joshi, ADE to obtain the necessary information from the relevant custodians of information thereof and provide the same to the Appellant within three weeks from the date of issue of this order, under intimation to the Commission, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Page 7 of 7