Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Beena Arora vs Directorate Of Education on 18 August, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                         के न्द्रीयसच
                                                    ू नाआयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                       बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DIRED/A/2022/152466-UM

Ms. BEENA ARORA


                                                                               ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                             VERSUS
                                               बनाम

CPIO,
O/o. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
PIO/NODAL OFFICER, RTI CELL, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION,
ZONE-9, DISTT. NORTH WEST-(A), GNCTD, BL-BLOCK,
SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI- 110088

                                                                           ..... प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing       :              03.08.2023
Date of Decision      :              17.08.2023

Date of RTI application                                                      06.06.2022
CPIO's response                                                              11.07.2022
Date of the First Appeal                                                     27.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                         08.08.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                         11.11.2022

                                            ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

The PIO / APIO, Zone-IX, Distt. NW-A vide letter dated 11.07.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 08.08.2022, directed the PIO to provide the revised reply to the Appellant.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Adv Madhumita Bhattacharyya with Ms. Beena Arora attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr A.K Mittal, DEE, Mr. Kavinder TGT and Mr Joginder Kumar, Principal, attended the hearing.

The Appellant's Advocate Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharyya while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that she had sought a copy of the inspection report of the Sant Nirankari Public School Sant Nirankari Colony Delhi- 110009 etc. She submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. She said that rule 194 of the Delhi Education rules states that the directorate of education has to give inspection report of all schools but no copy of inspection report of the Sant Nirankari Public School was provided. She said the Appellant is only seeking the form 5 but the respondent said that information sought is not available in their office record. While deposing in the hearing, she stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.

The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 11.07.2022, a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. He said that inspection report of 2019 to 2021 year are not available in their office record because no inspection was done during the period. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said. When queried, Advocate Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharyya, said that inspection report is very import to defend her case before the Hon'ble court.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 01.08.2023 which is taken on record.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO because the plea that the record sought is not available is untenable. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to search the information and furnish a revised reply to the appellant or furnish an affidavit to the Commission, explaining the factual position regarding the non-

availability of the information sought in the RTI application, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 25 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. A copy of the affidavit should also be provided to the Complainant. In the case the CPIO files a wrong affidavit the Complainant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commissions order.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 17.08.2023 Page 3 of 3