Central Information Commission
Mr.Manoj Ghai vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001146/7925
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001146
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Manoj Ghai,
D-2, Jeevan Jyoti Apartment
(Near Sandesh Vihar),
Pitampura, Delhi- 110034.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Deputy Director of Education (South),
Directorate of Education,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
C-Block, Defence Colony,
New Delhi- 110024.
RTI application filed on : 12/01/2010
PIO replied : Not replied.
First appeal filed on : 16/02/2009
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 22/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 03/05/2010
Information sought:
A self attested copy of duly countersigned (by EO/DEO of the concerned zone) Experience Certificate (teaching and educational administration) with period and post of Manager of S.R.S.D. Senior Secondary School, Lajpat Nagar-IV be provided.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No reply furnished.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information had been furnished to the Appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO had been asked to provide correct and complete information to the Appellant within seven days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information received from the DDE (South)/PIO despite more than seven days having elapsed.Page 1 of 3
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 12/01/2010. The Appellant did not receive any response from the PIO and he therefore filed a First Appeal on 16/02/2010. The First Appellate Authority held a hearing in this matter on 18/03/2010 which was attended by the Appellant and PIO/DDE (South) and APIO. The First Appellate Authority in her order dated 22/03/2010 has recorded the PIO's stated that the information pertains to the aided school which has its own PIO and Appellate Authority. However, the First Appellate Authority noted that the Appellant had sought the information from the PIO & DDE (South) and she directed the PIO & DDE (South) to provide the information to the Appellant within 7 days. Despite the order of the First Appellate Authority, till the date of filing of the Second Appeal (28/04/2010), the Appellant did not receive any information.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed to refuse disclosure by the PIO. If the information would not have been available with the PIO or if any exemption under Section 8(1) or 9 applied in the present case, the First Appellate Authority would have made an observation in that respect. However, no such observation has been made. It is clear from the circular issued dated 19/10/2004 by the Director of Education that the Manager of any aided school should have minimum ten years of experience in the field of education and the certificate for the purpose must be as incharge of MCD/NDMC/Recognised/Middle/Secondary/Senior Secondary School and that the certificate should be duly countersigned by EO/DEP of the concerned zone. Copy of this certificate should therefore be available with the Department of Education. If the relevant certificate is not available with the Department or has not been submitted, then the Department should inform the Appellant accordingly. The Commission therefore directs the PIO/ DDE (South) to comply with the order of the First Appellate Authority and provide the information to the Appellant before 21 June 2010. If the experience certificate duly countersigned by the EO/DEO is not available with the Department, the PIO shall clearly state the same in his reply.
The Appeal is allowed.
Information should be provided to the Appellant before 21 June 2010. The PIO/DDE (South) is directed to submit proof of sending the information to the Appellant to the Commission on 25 June 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/DDE (South) is guilty of not furnishing the complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7. He further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that his actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Page 2 of 3He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 June 2010 at 11.30 a.m. along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant and for not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the PIO/DDE (South) is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 25 June 2010 and direct them to appear before the Commission on 25 June 2010 along with him.
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 31 May 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SC) Page 3 of 3