Central Information Commission
Raj Kapoor vs Gnctd on 13 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/C/2023/126977
RAJ KAPOOR ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Education (Private School
Branch), Room No. 229, Old Secretariat,
Delhi - 110054 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025
Date of Decision : 10.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.06.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 31.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"मैने एक नवेदन प संदभ मे द॰ 26/12/22 को आपके कायालय मे Delhi State ओर Central School मे सरकार+ ,कूल मे EWS के तहत अपनी Page 1 of 8 पोती का4या कपूर के admission से संबि:धत दया था। उपरो?त @वषय के संदभ मे नBन जानकार+ चाहता हु:-
1. उपरो?त @वषय के संदभ मे आपके कायालय को दIल+ सरकार के Jकस @वभाग के secretary को भेजे गए प कM true certified कॉपी Qदान करने कM कृपा करे ।
2. उपरो?त @वषय के संदभ मे central सरकार के SशUा @वभाग के secretary को भेजे गए प कM true certified कॉपी Qदान करने कM कृपा करे ।
3. उपरो?त @वषय के संदभ मे दIल+ सरकार के SशUा @वभाग Wवारा उ?त भेजे गए प के जवाब कM true certified कॉपी Qदान करने कM कृपा करे ।
4. उपरो?त @वषय के संदभ मे सYZल SशUा @वभाग Wवारा भेजे गए उ?त प के जवाब कM true certified कॉपी Qदान करने कM कृपा करे ।"
The PIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 01.03.2023 stating as under:
"1. से 04. लैटर मो नट+^रंग Sस,टम ^रकाड के अनुसार दनांक 26.12.2022 का एक प डायर+ सं`या RN/2022/42452 दनांक 27.12.2022 से Qाथc के नाम दज पाया गया और यह प दनांक 30.12.2022 को The Director, Directorate of Education GNCTD को डाक ,टे ज पर इसी नंबर से भेज दया गया। इस प के संबंध मY आगे कM कोई भी जानकार+ Directorate of Education GNCTD से ल+ जा सकती है ।
इसके अ त^र?त आपका आर.ट+.आई. आवेदन प सूचना के अgधकार अgध नयम- 2005 कM धारा 6 (3) के अंतगत. PIO, Directorate of Education GNCTD को उgचत कायवाह+ हे तु ,थानांत^रत Jकया जा रहा है"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03.03.2023 stating as under:
"1 kांच मे @वचारधीन है ।
2 Qlन कM ,पmट कॉपी उपलnध कराये।Page 2 of 8
3 उपरो?त oम सं`या 1 के अनुसार 4 kांच से संबि:धत नह+ है।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2023. The FAA's order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar, APIO and Shri Sunil Kumar, Sr. Asstt., appeared in person.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 03.01.202 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the complainant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"It is most respectfully submitted Sh. Raj Kapoor filed an RTI Application dated 31.01.2023, RTI No. 18086 seeking certain information regarding Rules & Regulations in r/o admissions being done by Directorate of Education (DoE) under EWS category.
The reply to the same was forwarded to Sh. Raj Kapoor vide letter No. DE.15/PSB/RTI ID-18086/2023/2977 dated 10.04.2023.
It is submitted that DoE and the undersigned APIO has utmost respect and regard for Hon'ble Commission, and it is always referred to follow instructions contain in the RTI Act, 2005 in letter and spirit. We always endeavour to provide all available information to the RTI applicant.
It is humbly submitted that to resolve the issue this office has telephonically contacted Sh. Raj Kapoor and as per his requirement the pointwise revised reply has again been prepared for more clarity and the same has been provided to him vide letter no. DE.15/PSB/RTI ID/18086/2024/13 dated 02- 01-2025. Copy of the same is enclosed for reference of your honour.Page 3 of 8
It is humbly submitted that since the relevant information has already been provided and detailed pointwise information de desired by the applicant has also been provided, the present appeal may kindly be dropped/dismissed.
It is assured that the undersigned shall always act in the interest of providing all authorize information to the RTI applicant."
The PIO's reply dated 02.01.2025 given to the complainant is reproduced as under:
"आरट+आई मY आवे दक Wवारा उिIलpखत दनांक 26.12.2022 केप का ^रकॉड शाखा के उपलnध ^रकॉड के अनुसार Zेसब े ल नह+ं है । हालाँJक, आवेदक नेइस संबंध मY सीआईसी अपील केसाथ दनांक 26.12.2022 केप कM Q त संलsन कM है , इस संबंध मY यह सूgचत Jकया जाता है Jक दIल+ के नजी गैर-सहायता मा:यता Qाtत ,कूलu (अIपसं`यक को छोड़कर) मY Qवेश ,तर कM कUाओं (नसर+/केजी/Qथम) मY ईडnIयूएस/डीजी और सीडnIयूएसएन xे णी के तहत Qवेश के Sलए हर साल @वभाग कM वेबसाइट यानी www.edudel.nic.in के माzयम सेऑनलाइन आवेदन आमं| त Jकए जातेह}। (आपकM जानकार+ हेतु प^रप दनांक 24.04.2024 कM Q त संलsन है ।) इसके अलावा ~MSशप योजना (कUा 2 से9 तक) के तहत डीडीए सरकार Wवारा आवं टत भूSम पर चल रहे दIल+ के नजी गैर-सहायता मा:यता Qाtत ,कूलu (अIपसं`यक को छोड़कर) मY Qवेश के Sलए @वभाग कM वे बसाइट www.edudel.nic.in के माzयम सेआवे दन आमं| त Jकए जातेह}। (आपकM जानकार+ हेतु प^रप दनांक 20.09.2024 कM Q त संलsन है ।) यहां यह उIलेख करना Qासंgगक होगा Jक ,कूलu के आवंट न के Sलए कBtयूट र+कृत •ा आयोिजत Jकया जाता है और इसमY मैनुअल ह,तUेप कM कोई गुंजाइश नह+ं है ।"
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that RTI application Page 4 of 8 and the first appeal were filed before the LG office, New Delhi. The RTI application was transferred to the PIO, Directorate of Education, Delhi. The PIO, Directorate of Education, Delhi, vide letter dated 10.04.2023 provided point-wise reply to the complainant. The respondent submitted that the complainant sought information regarding Rules & Regulations in r/o admissions being done by Directorate of Education (DoE) under EWS category.
The respondent further submitted that to resolve the issue they had contacted Sh. Raj Kapoor telephonically and as per his requirement the point-wise revised reply was provided to him vide letter no. DE.15/PSB/RTI ID/18086/2024/13 dated
02.01.2025. The perusal of the replies given by the respondent PIOs reveal that there is contradiction in the replies given to the complainant. The respondent PIO vide letter dated 01.03.2023 replied that the complainant's representation/complaint dated 26.12.2022 was under consideration where in the revised reply dated 02.01.2025, the PIO stated that the said representation was not traceable in their department. The respondent who appeared before the Commission failed to explain the reasons for this contradiction. Besides, the respondent PIO has only scribbled his signature while replying to the RTI application and did not give his name, official designation and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation to the provisions/instructions on the subject. Therefore, Shri Ram Kumar, APIO is cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI application and appearing before the Commission.
It is noted that the PIO after receipt of hearing notice provided revised reply to the complainant vide letter dated 02.01.2025. The instant matter is a complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given, and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent. No mala-fide is established on the part of the CPIO in this case. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
Notwithstanding above, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures Page 5 of 8 and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.Page 6 of 8
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Ms. Veditha Reddy, Director (Education), Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
Ms. Veditha Reddy, Director (Education), Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA, O/o RD South, C-4 Lane, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110057 Ms. Veditha Reddy, Director (Education), Education Department, GNCT of Delhi, Old Secretariate, Near Vidhan Sabha, Delhi, 110054 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)