Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.O P Tokas vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 September, 2011

                    In the Central Information Commission 
                                           at
                                        New Delhi

                                                           File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001787


Date of Hearing :  September 27, 2011

Date of Decision:  September 27, 2011



Parties:  



Appellant


Shri O.P. Tokas
S/o Shri Sher Singh, 
75, Munirka PO JNU,
New Delhi 110 067

The Appellant was present.

Respondents 


Directorate of Education 
Government of NCT of Delhi
New Delhi



Represented by: Ms. Usha Soni, V.P

                 Information Commissioner     :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
                             In the Central Information Commission 
                                                                at
                                                        New Delhi

                                                                                          File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001787
                                                             ORDER

Background

1. The   Applicant   filed   his   RTI­application   dated   03.06.2011   with   the   PIO,   Directorate   of  Education   (South),   GNCTD,   New   Delhi,   seeking   certain   information   about   the   original  Sterilization Certificate  dated 29.07.1982(issued by HCMS II Block Medical Officer, PHC Madina,  Rohtak to his wife, Mrs. Prem Tokas) which, according to him, was sent to Principal, Bachan  Prasad SKV, Deoli, New Delhi for necessary action. The Principal, Bachan Prasad SKV, Deoli,  New Delhi, to whom the said RTI­application was transferred by PIO for response, informed the  Applicant   vide   his   letter   dated   14.06.2011   that   the   school   had   sent   all   his   records   to   Ishani  Sarvodaya  Kanya  Vidyalaya,   Saket, New Delhi on 20.06.2007, while also pointing out that the  Applicant himself (being a Head Clerk in the school) was the custodian of records when the said  certificate   was   sent   to   the   school.  The Applicant,  being aggrieved with the said reply of the  Principal, filed his 1st­appeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 24.06.2011. The AA, vide its  decision  dated 07.07.2011,  held the reply given by the APIO/Principal as 'comprehensive' and  accordingly   disallowed   the   Appellant's   1st­appeal.   The   Appellant   thereafter   filed   the   present  petition before the Commission on 21.07.2011 calling the APIO's reply "totally false". Decision

2. During the hearing, the representative of the Respondents categorically denied the existence of  said certificate with them which the Appellant refused to accept.  

3. Since the information (Sterilization Certificate) per­se is not there, its disclosure  cannot   be  authorized. 

4. Appeal is rejected.

(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy  (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar  Cc: 

1. Shri O.P. Tokas S/o Shri Sher Singh,  75, Munirka PO JNU, New Delhi 110 067
2. The Appellate Authority  Office of Regional Director of Education (South), Government of NCT of Delhi C­4, Vasant Vihar,  New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer  Dy. Director of Education (South) Government of NCT of Delhi C Block, Defence Colony, New Delhi
4. The Principal Bachan Prasad SKV,  Deoli, New Delhi
5. Officer in charge, NIC Note:   In   case,   the   Commission's   above   directives   have   not   been   complied   with   by   the   Respondents,   the  Appellant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI­Act, giving (1) copy  of RTI­application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of  the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding  the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.