Central Information Commission
Mr.Ranjan Sharma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003279/10796
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003279
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma
82, Arsh Complex,
Alfa-1, Greater Noida,
Distt.- Gautam Buddh Nagar,
U.P.
Respondent : Ms. Anita Satia
PIO & Deputy Director of Education, District South, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Defence Colony, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 07/09/2010 PIO replied : 23/10/2010 First appeal filed on : 27/10/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 03/11/2010 Second Appeal received on : 22/11/2010 Sl: Information Sought: PIO's Reply:
The appellant had sought information regarding:
1. Please provide me a daily certified copy of the progress report on The same complaint was the enclosed complaint with the details such as when on the received in the office of the DDE enclosed complaint reach to which officer, up to which date it on 22-6-2010, remained in the remained with him and what written action was taken by him till office on 23-6-2010 and received up to date. in the zone-23 on 24-6-2010.
2. Whether the enquiry on this complaint has been completed? It is in process.
3. If the above mentioned enquiry is completed, any action has been Not applicable in view of above.
taken against the erring officials?
4. Name the persons found responsible for the wrong doing in the Not applicable in view of above.
said complaint.
5. If the inquiry has not been completed please inform how much Not covered in view of above.
time it will take to complete.
Grounds of First Appeal:
No information has been received by the appellant.
Order of the FAA:
PIO has been ordered to provide the correct and complete information to the appellant free of cost for point 1.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Correct and complete information has not been provided by the PIO till date. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma;
Respondent : Ms. Anita Satia, PIO & Deputy Director of Education;
The information has not been provided completely even now. The information was initially given late and even after the order of the FAA to provide the information in seven days on 03/11/2010 it has been provided on 10/10/2010. The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint. Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
The PIO states that she had taken the assistance of Mrs. Madhu Singh, EO(23) to provide the information who is responsible for the delay.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information to the Appellant before 20 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mrs. Madhu Singh, EO(23) within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. She has further refused to obey the orders of her superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the deemed PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her.
Mrs. Madhu Singh, EO(23) will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 27 January 2011 at 02.30pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1). She will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with her.
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 06 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST) CC:
To: Mrs. Madhu Singh, EO(23) through Ms. Anita Satia, PIO & DDE(S);