Central Information Commission
V K Jain vs Directorate Of Education on 30 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DIRED/A/2024/600815
V K Jain .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
A.D.E (East), Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi, RTI Branch,
Anand Vihar, Delhi - 110092. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Decision : 29-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18-09-2023
CPIO replied on : 21-09-2023
First appeal filed on : 26-10-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08-12-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18-09-2023 seeking the following information:
"Queries of the RTI Application are annexed as pdf file for obtaining the desired information from Litigation Branch HQ, O/0 DDE Zone-2, O/o DDE Zone-3, 0/0 DDE Central, O/0 DDE Zone- 27, 0/0 DDE Zone-01, O/o DDE Zone-10 & 0/0 DDE East.Page 1 of 3
All concerned PIO please note that I desire that the supply of information pertaining to queries be done by email/speed post/registered post.
From Litigation Branch HQ :
(1) Diary number with date of receipt of summon and copy of petition in r/o court case 790/2017 despatched by a Jaipur court vide speed post ED343942203IN which was delivered to Directorate on 27-02-2018. (2) Information regarding action taken by DDE Litigation regarding the above mentioned court case 790/2017.
(3) Information available as per records of Litigation Branch of DOE HQ which enpowers school SMC to accomplish illegal construction & repair-renovation in prohibited zone of ASI against the provisions of AMASR Act. (4) Information available as per records of Litigation Branch which mentions that keeping patiya and girder on already constructed walls in prohibited zone of ASI is not 'construction' as per AMASR Act.
(5) Information available as per records of Litigation Branch which mentions that Director (Education) has overriding powers over competent authority of ASI in r/o matters related to AMASR Act.
From Litigation Branch of District East:
(6) (a) Diary number with date of receipt of summon and copy of petition in r/o court case 790/2017 issued by a Jaipur court from Litigation Branch of DOE HQ. (6) (b) Information regarding the reasons for accepting the facts mentioned by petitioner in court case 790/2017 as per order 8 rule 5 of CPC."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21-09-2023 stating as under:
"Please find enclosed herewith application, received in this office from Ms./Mr. VK Jain. The information required by the applicant falls under your jurisdiction hence the same is being transferred to your office i.e., the PIO, Dy. Director of Education, Zone I, II & III under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005. The information may kindly be made available to the applicant directly under intimation to this office. In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction, the same may be forwarded to the authority concerned directly under intimation to the applicant."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26-10-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08-12-2023, held as under:- Page 2 of 3
"On the aforesaid date, the PIO as well as the appellant was absent. The appellant had submitted in his application that even after the mandated period of 30 days, the PIO has not provided the reply.
On perusal of relevant record made available, it is revealed therefrom that the PIO has not provided the reply to the appellant. Accordingly, the PIO is herby directed to provide the correct/complete/pointwise reply to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within 10 days of receipt of this letter.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the above directions."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Decision:
A written request vide e-mail dated 12.04.2024 has been received from the Appellant seeking withdrawal of the instant Appeal.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the records and taking note of the written submission of the Appellant finds it liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
Accordingly, the above-mentioned appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)