Central Information Commission
R N Kaushik vs Directorate Of Education on 28 April, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DIRED/A/2022/133721-UM
Mr. R. N. Kaushik
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Dy. Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Zone - XI, Distt. North West - B, Fu-Block,
Pitampura, Delhi - 110 034
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.04.2023
Date of Decision : 28.04.2023
Date of RTI application 13.04.2022
CPIO's response 06.05.2022
Date of the First Appeal 13.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 19.06.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.07.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The PIO, Directorate of Education, vide letter dated 06.05.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2022directed the PIO to provide the revised reply of question no.1 to the Appellant.Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr Anil Prakash TGT Maths Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted he had sought information with respect to RTI filed against head of the school, the Vice Principal, regarding the status of the compliance of orders given by the Tree Court and copies of all the actions taken by the School complying with the orders of the Court.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted he had sought information with respect to an RTI filed against head of the school, the Vice Principal, regarding the status of the compliance of orders given by the Tree Court and copies of all the actions taken by the School complying with the orders of the Court.
The Appellant further stated that he had previously complained against the cutting of 12 trees in the school premises without the permission of Forest Department. He said the school had sought permission from the PWD to cut the 12 trees but the PWD said that the matter was beyond their jurisdiction. The Appellant said in a previous RTI Application seeking the order copies of PWD, Page 2 of 3 the appellant came to know that no such order had been passed giving the school permission to cut trees.
Therefore, He said on hearing the matter, the Tree Court imposed a penalty of Rs 4,20,000 on the school for cutting 10 trees out of 12. He said out of the 12 trees only 2 trees were dry and therefore legally fit for being cut.
The Appellant further brought to notice that compliance of the order has so far not been done by the school.
The Respondent in response stated that there is a pending case in the High Court wherein an appeal has been filed against the penalty imposed on the school. He said as the matter is sub judice they are not able to give the desired information sought by the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the RTI so received can be viewed as a request made to uphold larger public interest. Trees are fundamental unit of life on this planet and without them there is no question of sustenance. The Appellant through this RTI Application, has shown that he is an aware citizen who is sensitized about the cutting of trees. Even the right to clean and healthy environment has been recognised as a fundamental right under article 21 of our Indian Constitution. It would therefore, be perfectly in the fitness of things and in the public interest as well to provide the information to the Appellant as soon as possible. It is also observed by the commission that although the case is subjudice with the honorable High Court the court has not issued any direction for denying information to the appellant.
Therefore the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish correct & complete information to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the personal details of the third parties. 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 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 28.04.2023 Page 3 of 3