Central Information Commission
Chand Ram vs Directorate Of Education on 22 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2024/132080
Chand Ram ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, DDE, Zone- XIII, Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2026
Date of Decision : 22.05.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
SA : 04.03.2024,
RTI : 05.04.2023 FA : 25.04.2023
27.09.2024
CPIO : 08.05.2023 FAO : 15.06.2023 Hearing : 23.04.2026
Date of Decision: 22.05.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2023 before the PIO/DDE seeking the information about Sidhartha Public School at Tatesar Extn. in respect of 28 points. Among various queries, he sought to know whether the school was recognised by the DDE for sessions 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23; whether the students of all religion are admitted in the school without any discrimination of religion, race, caste or place of birth as per norms of the Department; whether the school provides 10 books per student, purchased by school and made available to students; the facilities for reading room in the school; whether the school abides by DSEAR Act regarding payment, about Management Committee of the school as per DSEAR Act etc. Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2024/132080 Page 1 of 3
2. The PIO/DDE, Zone- XIII vide reply dated 08.05.2023 responded in the affirmative with respect to question no. 1, while denying information with respect to all other queries as third party information, citing Section 8(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Meanwhile without waiting for expiry of one month statutory period, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 25.04.2023, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 15.06.2023 directing the PIO to provide a revised reply within 10 days. In compliance with the FAA's order, a revised reply dated 13.09.2023 was sent by the PIO furnishing the point wise information to the Appellant.
4. Still not satisfied with the response, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal. The Appellant has also stated that the PIO's above reply dated 13.09.2023 was received by him belatedly, on 09.01.2024.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: None.
Respondent: None.
Decision
6. Perusal of records of the case reveals that the response sent by the PIO denying information citing Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, is legally flawed, because first of all the legal provision has been misquoted, instead of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the PIO has stated Section 8(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the queries were not related to any third party as is evident from the fact that the information against these queries have been answered subsequently vide reply dated 13.09.2023 (pursuant to the FAA's order), therefore the denial of information at the first instance vide reply dated 08.05.2023 was legally flawed and a deliberate obstruction to the dissemination of information.
7. It is noted that the point wise reply dated 13.09.2023 had been duly provided to the Appellant, by the Respondent-PIO/DDE, Zone- XIII, District North West, GNCTD in terms of the FAA's order dated 15.06.2023. However, the PIO/DDE, Zone- XIII, District North West, GNCTD has neither attended the hearing nor deputed any representative to attend the hearing. Moreover, the PIO/DDE, Zone- XIII has failed to Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2024/132080 Page 2 of 3 submit any written submission explaining either his absence during hearing or the reason behind the intentional denial of information vide reply dated 08.05.2023. In the given circumstances, it is hereby directed that the Registry of this Bench shall issue a SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to the PIO/DDE, Zone- XIII, District North West, GNCTD to explain why penalty should not be imposed for: 1) deliberate denial of information vide reply dated 08.05.2023 citing incorrect provision of law; and 2) unexplained absence from the hearing thereby vitiating the proceedings.
8. Hearing of the Show Cause case shall be scheduled in normal course by the Registry. The Respondent/Noticee - PIO, DDE, Zone- XIII, District North West, GNCTD must send a cogent explanation/reply to the Show Cause Notice, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice.
The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2024/132080 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)