Central Information Commission
Randhir Singh Nehra vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 1 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/124438/00554
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/124438
In the matter of:
Randhir Singh Nehra
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer & Asst. Secretary
CBSE HQ, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 21/12/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 02/02/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 08/04/2018 Date of Hearing : 01/05/2019 Date of Decision : 01/05/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Rahul Arora (Representative) Respondent: Ms. Seema Khakha, Assistant Secretary and PIO Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding details of his complaint dated 21st November 2017 vide reference No. NEH/5623/2017 sent vide registered AD No. ED621651900IN marked to Chairman, CBSE:
1. Provide the current status of his complaint. In how much time will the Investigation in above Complaint be concluded and in general how much time it takes to conclude investigation in such cases. What action will be taken on his complaint.1
2. As per your records name of concerned officers to whom his complaint has been directed and what action has been taken, and if not taken the reason for the same. As per record whether issued any notices, mention the sections used in such notices.
3. Details regarding the process followed by the department concerned for taking action against such Complaints, as soon as such Complaint is lodged.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The PIO submitted that IPO was not drawn in favour of the proper authority i.e "Secretary CBSE". She further submitted that the appellant was intimated of the same on 29.12.2017. She also submitted that no first appeal was received by them after the reply.
The appellant submitted that the reply was not received. Hence, he could not submit the corrected IPO; he further requested for liberty to submit the correct IPO.
Observations:
From a close scrutiny of the RTI application dated 21.12.2017, it was noted that appellant mentioned his previous postal address in the RTI application. Accordingly, the reply dated 29.12.2017 of the CPIO was also sent to the same address. However, when the first appeal was filed on 02.02.2018, the appellant mentioned his present postal address. Due to this it appears that, the reply might have been returned undelivered. Further, the first appeal was not received by the FAA as per the CPIO's submission during hearing, hence the matter remain unresolved.
Decision:
Keeping in view the above circumstances, the Commission finds it appropriate to direct the CPIO to provide information as available on record in respect of points 2 to 12 after obliterating any personal information u/s 10 of the RTI Act. In respect of point 1 only the status can be given , the rest being hypothetical ,is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO shall provide the reply subject to the appellant's filing of correct IPO addressed to "Secretary CBSE" alongwith 2 File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/124438 the RTI application, within 15 days from the receipt of the order. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3