CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001852/4464
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001852
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Goel
C/o Health Care Foundation
D-94, Pandav Nagar,
Patparganj Road, Delhi-110092.
Respondent : Ms. Abha Joshi
PIO
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Directorate of Education (ACT Branch)
Room No. 212 “A”, Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.
RTI application filed on : 23/04/2009 PIO replied : 25/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 30/06/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2009 Second Appeal filed on : 06/08/2009 Sr. No. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Copy of Bansal Committee PIO replied that the Appellant can
report. obtain the copy of Bansal committee
report after depositing payment of Rs.
138/- for 69 pages @ Rs.2/- per page
from the office.
2. Copy of note for council of The information asked for by the
Ministers and minutes of the Appellant is confidential; hence it
meeting to consider such report. could not be given under RTI Act.
Photocopy of whole file
alongwith all the notings/
comments/minutes/proceedings
etc. made by various authorities
including the copies of any
inter/intra office communication,
regarding acceptance of
above/non acceptance of report
and any further steps taken by
the Govt. to get it implemented.
3. Whether any financial analysis Information is not available.
were done for the schools in
questions to ascertain the impact
of pay hike on the profitability of
schools? If yes, please supply
any such report to the Appellant.
Grounds for First Appeal:
With regard to Point No. 2: Proviso of Section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act should be applied.
Intimation is not covered by any of the exemptions.
With regard to Point No. 2: It can not be said that the information is not available with the
implementing department.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered “After examining the issues raised in the letter of appeal
and the information provided to the Appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the
information so provided to the applicant is complete.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
With regard to Point no. 2 & 3:- FAA wrongly upheld the reply of the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ajay Goel
Respondent: Ms. Abha Joshi, PIO
The Appellant contends that the department should have put up the details of the Bansal
Committee pro-actively as per the requirement of Section 4(b)(viii). He also contends that all
relevant facts while formulating the important policy about the fee hike in schools should have
been displayed and reasons provided as per Section 4(c) and (d). It is apparent that the public
authority has failed to do this.
The PIO admits denying information to Query 2 was a mistake and has agreed to provide the
information. As regards Query 3 the PIO states that no other financial analysis has been done
unless the Bansal Committee has done it. She will however, confirm this and provide the
information.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information to the Appellant before 20 August 2009.
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
17 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(AK)