Central Information Commission
Mr.Manoj Ghai vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001146/7925Adjunct
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 (1) : Ms. Anita Setia
PIO & Dy. Director of Edu.(South),
Directorate of Education,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
C-Block, Defence Colony,
New Delhi- 110024.
Respondent (2) : Mr. R.C. Sharma
PIO & Manager
S.R.S.D. Senior Secondary School,
Lagpat nagar-IV,
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.Page 1 of 4
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information received from the DDE (South)/PIO despite more than seven days having elapsed.
Decision dated 31/05/2010:
"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 was 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 4
He 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."
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing dated 25/06/2010:
Respondent: Ms. Anita Setia, PIO & DDE(South); Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, PIO & Manager, SRSD Sr. Sec. School, Lapat Nagar-IV The PIO & DDE(South) Ms. Anita Setia has stated that the RTI application dated 12/01/2010 was received in her office on 13/01/2010 and the same was forwarded to the EO, Zone-25 on 18/01/2010. The deemed PIO & EO, Zone-25 further forwarded the RTI application to the PIO & manager of the concerned school Mr. R.C. Sharma. Subsequently, the PIO & Manager, Mr. R.C. Sharma prepared and sent the reply to the PIO & DDE(South) through EO, Zone-25 on 06/03/2010. On non-receipt of information the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 05/03/2010. During the hearing of First Appeal the PIO/DDE(South) submitted that as per the order of Director of Education dated 08/04/2008 all aided schools are covered Under Section 2(h) (d) of the RTI Act being separate public authorities and also the information sought should be available with the concerned school only. However, the FAA directed the PIO & DDE (South) on 22/03/2010 to provide the correct and complete information to the Appellant within 7 days. The PIO & DDE(South) further forwarded the FAA's order to the PIO & Manager of the School. The PIO & Manager, Mr. R.C. Sharma provided a fresh reply on 15/04/2010.
On perusal of the reply dated 06/03/2010 and 15/04/2010 provided by the PIO & Manager, Mr. R.C. Sharma, the Commission observed that the PIO Mr. R.C. Sharma has never stated clearly that whether the information sought was available in his records or not, however he had only provided the clarifications regarding the non-availability of information sought.
Adjunct decision dated 28/06/2010:
The Commission directs the PIO & Manager, Mr. R.C. Sharma to provide the correct and complete information to the Appellant before 08/07/2010. Further, if information is not available on record the PIO is directed to clearly state the same and provide a copy of such statement to the Appellant and a copy to the Commission before 08/07/2010.
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 28 June 2010 Page 3 of 4 In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC) Page 4 of 4