Central Information Commission
Bhoopal Singh vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 8 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/KVSAN/C/2018/103313/02563
File no.: CIC/KVSAN/C/2018/103313
In the matter of:
Bhoopal Singh
... Complainant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Delhi Region, JNU Campus, New Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi-110067
2. Public Information Officer/Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
NFC Vigyan Vihar, 1st shift near Vivek Vihar
Police station, Delhi-110092
3. Public Information Officer/Assistant Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office,
Agra, Grand Parade Road, Agra Cantt., Agra-282001
4. Public Information Officer/Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi-110003
5. Public Information Officer/Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Khichripur,
Near Krishna Mandir, Block- 6, Delhi-110091
6. Public Information Officer/Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dogra Lines,
Meerut Cantt, near Topkhana Bazar, Meerut,
U.P- 250001
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 18/10/2017
CPIO replied on : 26/10/2017,01/11/2017,20/12/2017
1
First appeal filed on : 04/12/2017
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint dated : 10/01/2018 Date of Hearing : 07/01/2020 Date of Decision : 07/01/2020
Note: Based on the relief sought, the present complaint is treated as appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act.
The following were present:
Appellant : Present over VC Respondent : 1. Smt. Mamta Sharma, Principal and PIO, KV Pragati Vihar, present in person alongwith
2. Shri Rajiv Mohan Lakhera, Principal and CPIO, KV Vigyan Vihar,
3. Shakuntala Jayas, CPIO, K.V Khichripur;
4. Shri Sudarshan Kumar Sharma, Administrative Officer and CPIO, KVS Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information related to Mrs Neeta Khurana who was holding the charge of K.V. Kicharipur, Pragati Vihar and Dogra Lines, Meerut as Principal and Mrs. Laxmi Singh, of KV, NFC, Delhi.
1. Photocopies of cheque issue register of VVN Account during the period of Mrs Neeta Khurana and Smt Laxmi Singh(Both Shifts).
2. Details of Admission (category wise made under RTE Act) during the period of Mrs Neeta Khurana and Mrs Laxmi Singh (Both Shifts)(Date of Registration, date of admission, complete address of the parents with designation in SC/ST/OBC/General Category).
Grounds for Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the information related to cheque issue register of Vidyalaya Vikas Nidhi (VVN) account which was sought by him. This account is related to money collected from students for Vidyalaya maintenance- Security arrangements, gardening and examination etc. Norms of the account are generally ignored by the Principals. To find out whether the public money 2 File no.: CIC/KVSAN/C/2018/103313 was being spent correctly or not was in the larger public interest. He further alleged that the Principal knew that in case the cheque issue register is out then quotations and related documents will be demanded and the process of purchase, maintenance will be demanded. The root of corruption will be surfaced in no time just as the matters of Employee Provident Fund and Electricity theft has surfaced. He pointed out that the RTI application was filed on 18.10.2017 regarding K.V.Khicharipur, Dogra Lines Meerut, Pragati Vihar, and Vigyan Vihar. He further submitted that K.V.Khicharipur and Dogra Lines had provided the information and there is no complaint against Khicharipur and Dogra Lines as they provided the information on payment. He is not satisfied with the reply of KV Pragati Vihar and KV Vigyan Vihar.
K.V. Pragati Vihar The appellant informed that the Principal K.V. Pragati Vihar was directed by the PIO KVS Regional office to provide the information as per section 7(1). He submitted that without initiating Sec 11 procedure, information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 12.02.2018 directed the Prinicpal K.V. Pragati Vihar to provide the information.
The Principal was aware of the fact that after 30 days the information is to be provided free of cost as per Sec 6(4) even then charges of Rs 424 was asked vide letter dated 13.02.2018. He pointed out that there is no provision to deposit charges after expiry of stipulated time. It is harassment and against the fundamental right to know to applicant.
The Principal K.V. Pragati Vihar provided the information vide letter dated 24.12.2019 after receiving the hearing notice from CIC.
He further enumerated the deficiency in the information given-
There is no signature of any officer to ascertain that the information belongs to K.V Pragati Vihar.
There is no numbering on the pages to decide the sequence of the information and relation to previous pages.
3 The information has been sent after receipt of CIC letter for hearing after around 2 years. In case the case was not scheduled the information was not to be sent.
By providing information after around two years is making a mockery of the RTI Act 2005.
The information is not sent by the Principal it has been signed on behalf of the Principal. A circular issued by DoPT stated: "In case the documents to be certified and supplied are in large numbers, information on the RTI application should be supplied by a designated PIO but the certification of the documents, if need be could be done by another junior gazetted officer." The circular comes in the wake of replies that do not follow proper procedure. All these are details that are anyways present in the Act. However, officials do not follow the norms.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Vigyan Vihar:-
The appellant stated that information was requested vide application dated 18.10.2017.
PIO KVS directed the Principal K.V Vigyan Vihar Delhi to supply the information.
The Principal demanded Rs 300/- as cost of 150 pages. The IPO Rs 300/- sent by speed post on 08.12.2017.
Principal denied to receive the IPO of Rs 300/-. The applicant visited the Vidyalaya on 21.12.2017 as the Principal asked to collect information in person. The information was not provided as there was a shortage of staff. The applicant wrote to FAA. The Principal wrote to the FAA that no money has been deposited by the applicant.
The Applicant again deposited Rs 300/- personally for the cost of information and wrote to FAA and Deputy Commissioner KVS regarding foul played by the Principal. An enquiry in this matter was requested.
The Deputy Commissioner ordered to the Principal K.V.Vigyan Vihar to conduct an enquiry vide letter dated 25.02.2018. No enquiry has been conducted so far by the Principal though more than twenty months had past. This matter is pending with the FAA.
4 File no.: CIC/KVSAN/C/2018/103313 No report has been provided in case inquiry conducted by the Principal.
The Principal supplied the information in a very casual way which cannot be termed as authentic due to the facts written below:-
(a) Name and seal of the Vidyalaya on any page has not been affixed. In the absence of these it is not possible to ascertain information's authenticity.
(b) The pages are not signed by any authorised person to ascertain the authenticity of the papers.
(c) There is no seal of RTI on any pages.
He further relied on Delhi High Court order in the matter of R.K Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018 dated 29.08.2019, wherein it was held as under:
".......That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
In the present case every section and provision of the Act has been vitiated at every stage. The PIO KVS as per section 7 (1) directed Principal K.V.Pragati Vihar to supply the information. The Principal K.V. Pragati Vihar is APIO and custodian of the information both. The Principal K.V. Pragati Vihar as APIO decided to invoke the provision of third party and wrote a letter to the applicant of the same.
He further submitted that the Principal K.V Pragati Vihar demanded charges of Rs 2/- per pages for supplying the information after 4 months of original application dated 18.10.2017 vide letter dated 13.02.2018. The Principal defied the provision of sec 7(6) of the RTI Act.
He summed up requesting for the following relief:
1) Penalty as per Sec 20(1) of the RTI Act.
2) Order to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO.
3) In respect of K.V. Vigyan Vihar, order to conduct an enquiry about Rs 300/- IPO sent by speed post.5
4) Order to return Rs 300/- as the amount was already in possession of the Principal.
The CPIO Pragati Vihar submitted that it took time to locate the information sought and hence delay occurred. She further requested for condonation of the delay.
The CPIO Vigyan Vihar submitted that the then Principal Smt. Laxmi Singh was transferred. He further submitted that the payment of Rs 300 was requested vide letter dated 26.10.2017. He further submitted that the appellant vide letter dated 09.11.2017 informed the CPIO that he will in person collect the information after payment on 14.11.2017, but he did not turn up. Further a status report was sought by the FAA on 12.02.2018. Furthermore vide letter dated 15.02.2018 it was informed to the FAA that no payment was received yet. He confirmed that the payment was received on 21.02.2018 in cash in lieu of money receipt and accordingly documents containing 150 pages were given on 13.03.2018. The CPIO Vigyan Vihar had submitted complete documentary proof in this regard.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the appellant could not provide any documentary proof to establish his claim of payment of Rs 300 through IPO before 21.02.2018. Hence, any irregularity on the part of the then Principal KV Vigyan Vihar is not established. However, the CPIO K V Pragati Vihar erred in not providing the certified copies of the documents with proper index. The appellant did not contest any other respondents' reply. Hence, as a matter of relief the CPIO Pragati Vihar is directed to provide certified copies of the documents asked with proper sequence. The CPIO KV Pragati Vihar also delayed the reply which is not proper.
Decision:
The CPIO Pragati Vihar should note that invariably the documents given under the RTI Act should be certified and the appellant should be aided in every possible manner to ensure that there is no inconvenience caused to him. The 6 File no.: CIC/KVSAN/C/2018/103313 CPIOs of the concerned KVs are also warned for not providing a timely suitable reply and cautioned to remain careful in future.
The Commission however has not found this to be a fit case for imposition of penalty as there was no prima facie malafide intention on the part of the CPIOs.
The CPIO Pragati Vihar is directed to provide the information sought in the form of certified copies free of cost to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 7