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 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Suraj Mal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 16 March, 2012

                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000284/17744
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000284

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant                           :       Mr. Surajmal,
                                            E-72 Jawahar Park, Devli Road,
                                            New Dlehi-110062

Respondent                          :       Mrs. Premlata

Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Education) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Education Department, South Zone.

                                            Green Park, New Delhi

RTI application filed on            :       25/08/2011
PIO replied                         :       19/09/2011
First appeal filed on               :       30/09/2011
First Appellate Authority order     :       17/11/2011
Second Appeal received on           :       19/01/2012

The Appellant sought information regarding      MKD National Public School (A-34 Krishna Park, Devli
Road)
  Sl.          Information Sought                   Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1.    Did the school, violate the condition     Inspection of all recognized school is done only on a
      of annual inspection (also a              complaint regarding the school .Inspection has been done
      condition for grant of recognition) as    on two prior occasion on receipt of a complaint. The
      it had been inspected 3 times in last     report of the same had been forwarded to the
      11 years since its recognition.           headquarter.

2.      In a reply to previous RTI              No irregularity had been shielded according to regional
        application the PIO stated that         office
        school had been inspected thrice
        since its time of recognition but the
        inspection reports are not available
        Are those reports misplaced to
        shield the irregularities?
3.      Mention the name and designation        Report had been forwarded to the headquarter. The
        of the employee responsible for         inspection was carried out by AEO/SZ and its report is
        misplacing the inspection reports.      not available with the office as the concerned officer had
                                                retired.


Grounds for the First Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.

Page 1 of 2

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

The First Appellate Authority stated that the information sought had been provided according to the records of the department.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Surajmal;
Respondent: Mrs. Premlata, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Education);
The Appellant has highlighted what appears to be a very majour irregularity in the Department. As he points out an annual inspection is mandatory of all recognized schools. In the school of MKD National Public School (A-34 Krishna Park, Devli Road) which has been recognized by MCD it is claimed that only on three occasions inspection has been done in the past eleven years. It is claimed that the first inspection was done in January 2007 but the inspection report is not available. The inspection report is either stolen/lost. The Respondent states that the second inspection was done in February 2011 but no inspection report was made. The Respondent states that the third inspection was done as part of an inquiry in April 2011but the report has been sent to the Grant-in-Aid Head Quarter. The Commission directs the PIO to obtain the inquiry report which has been sent to Grant-in-Aid Head Quarter and sent to the Appellant before 10 April 2012. The PIO will also file a police complaint for the theft/loss of the inspection report of January 2007, giving the names of the officers who last handled this inspection report, and send a copy of the said police complaint to the Appellant before 10 April 2012.
The Commission is marking a copy of this order to the Director of Education, MCD, 15th Floor, Civic Center, Minto Road, New Delhi. The Commission hopes Director would take appropriate action in this matter.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 10 April 2012.
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 16 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Copy to:
1-       Director of Education,
         MCD,
         15th Floor, Civic Center,
         Minto Road, New Delhi.



                                                                                                              Page 2 of 2