Central Information Commission
Mr. Ranvir Singh vs Directorate Of Education, Govt. Of Nct ... on 9 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001719/4737
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001719
Appellant : Mr. Ranvir Singh
H.No.83, Ishwar Colony,
Near Mandir, Bawana- Delhi - 110039
Respondent : Mr. Sameer C. Minz
Public Information Officer (HQ)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Directorate of Education, RTI Cell,
Room NO. 252, Old Secretariat,
Delhi - 110001
RTI application filed on : 01/04/2009
PIO replied : 22/04/2009
First Appeal filed on : 29/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 27/05/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 14/07/2009
Information sought:
The Appellant had sought inspection of files in respect of:
1- Letter to Director of Education dated 25/03/1992 and reminder for the same dated 1/5/1992.
2- Letter/representation to Commissioner cum Secretary dated 25/05/1992 and reminder for the same dated 5/6/1992.
3- Letter to Director of Education regarding action taken on my representation to Honorable Minister of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 16/10/1997.
PIO's Reply:
"I am to state that the status of these letters which were sent to the Secretary (Education) are as follows:
Sl.no Diary no. Date Sent to . 1- 1655/SE 26/05/1992 The Director of Education on 26/05/1992 2- 1770/SE 9/6/1992 The Director of Education on 09/06/1992 Grounds for First Appeal: Information was not provided. Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"I have perused the original RTI Application dated 1/4/2009, reply furnished by the PIO (HQ) dated 22/4/2009 and the appeal filed by him on 29/4/2009 OS (E-II Branch) informed that concerned record lies with the E-IV Branch. ADE(E-IV) is directed to supply the information to the Appellant through PIO(HQ) within 15 working days."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ranvir Singh Respondent: Absent The Appellant states that the inspite of the orders of the FAA inspection of the relevant files and copies of the documents sought by him have not been provided. This is an unacceptable situation and the PIO must ensure that such carelessness is not repeated.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO Mr. Sameer C. Minz to ensure that an inspection of the relevant files is facilitated by the Appellant on 5 October 2009 and attested photocopies of relevant records provided free of cost upto 200 pages.
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, Mr. Sameer C. Minz is guilty of not furnishing 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 October, 2009. 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 9 September 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM)