Central Information Commission
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs Directorate Of Education, Government ... on 8 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003188/6336a
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003188/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta,
B-1644/4, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi- 110052.
Respondent : Public Information Officer (HQ)
Government of NCT of Delhi.
Directorate of Education, RTI Cell Room No 221, Old Secretariat, Delhi- 110054.
Public Information Officer, Government of NCT of Delhi.
Dy Director of Education, VKS Branch, Room No 11-A, Old Secretariat, Delhi- 110054.
RTI application filed on : 07/09/2009
PIO replied : No reply.
First appeal filed on : 07/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 19/11/2009
Second Appeal received on : 18/12/2009
Information Sought
i) Whether Directorate of Education (GNCTD) is expected to follow General
Financial Rules (GFR) 2005.
ii) Whether the Directorate follows rule 132 (i) and 132 (vii) of GFR for implementing projects in excess of Rs 1 crore.
iii) Whether the pre-qualification criteria of CPWD manual, volume ii Appendix 18 had been taken into account while formulating tender for BALA.
iv) Whether the Directorate was aware of the CVC guidelines regarding pre-
qualification criteria of the tender process.
v) The reasons for ignoring the CVC guidelines in BALA tender. Whether the department will make amends after being made aware of CVC's guideline.
vi) The criteria behind selecting an EMD of Rs 5 lakhs per district in the BALA tender.
vii) "The meaning of section 10.2 (a) of BALA tender".
viii) "The reasons for making the printers, authorized dealers etc eligible in the tender".
ix) The reasons for the language being vague/meaningless in section 18.4 of BALA tender.
x) The name of Co-deputy director. xi) The reasons for ambiguity in section 19.4 of the tender.
xii) The reasons for not making available the criteria for district wise allotment in the tender document.
xiii) The reasons for not explicitly defining the term 'substantially responsive' in section 11.
xiv) The reasons for non inclusion of tentative list of documents in the tender document.
xv) The reasons for empowering the purchase committee to seek clarifications which go against CPWD guidelines.
xvi) a) Whether it is true that Star Forms, SMAT forms and others will be selected despite not having implemented any BALA work.
b) Whether it is true that Laxmi Group (who do not fulfill all the criteria but have nevertheless done substantial BALA work) will be eliminated. xvii) Whether a particular company has been favoured over the others by ignoring GFR provisions and CVC guidelines.
xviii) Whether any norms are followed in the tender process and the reasons for the partisan role played by the department.
Reply of the PIO No reply given by the PIO.
First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
"I have perused the RTI application dated 7/9/2009, reply furnished by the PIO (HQ) date 1/1/0/09, 9/1/2009 and appeal filed on 7/10/2009. However DDE (VKS) is directed to give full reply of all the 18 questions within 10 working days."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non compliance of FAA's order. Decision:
It appears that no information has been provided to the appellant in compliance of the order of the First Appellate Authority, without any reasons. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the information to be given to the appellant within 10 days of his order on 19/11/2009. Hence it appears that the FAA's order has not been implemented. The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before 30 January 2010. If there are no records available or maintained for any of the information sought, this will be stated.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete 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. He has 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 has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 5 February 2010 at 3.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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 8 January 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RR)