CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001462/11737Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/001462
Complainant : Mr. Aman Kumar,
A-18, Raksha Kunj,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110663
Respondent (1) : Ms. Urmil Khanna
PIO & Deputy Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, District North,
Lucknow Road, Delhi -
Delhi - 110054
Respondent (2) : Mr. P. C. Malhotra
Public Information Officer
Queen Mary Senior Secondary School,
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant filed an RTI application with Respondent No. 1 on 20/10/2010 asking for certain
information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a
Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a
notice to Respondent No. 1 on 03/12/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant
and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter dated 31/12/2010 from Respondent No. 1, which stated that the
requisite information was related to a Government aided school, who have an independent PIO and the
application was transferred the said PIO vide a letter dated 12/11/2010, a copy of the same was sent to the
Complainant. Further, Respondent No. 2 has also been requested by Respondent No. 1, vide letter dated
24/12/2010 to take the necessary action. However, there is no proof of any response being sent by
Respondent no. 2 to the Complainant till date.
Commission’s Decision dated 30th March 2011:
The Complaint was allowed.
The Public Information Officer, Queen Mary Senior Secondary School is directed to furnish the
requisite information to the Complainant before 20th April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by law. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any
reasons. The PIO appears to be 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. It appears
that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of
the RTI Act. The PIO, Queen Mary Senior Secondary School is hereby directed to be present before this
Page 1 of 2
Commission on 26/04/2011 at 12.30 pm along with written submissions to show cause why penalty
should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of
the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to any other official (s) who are responsible for not
providing the information, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with the PIO
on the aforesaid scheduled date and time.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Aman Kumar
Respondent (1): Ms. Urmil Khanna, PIO & Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education;
Respondent (2): Mr. P. C. Malhotra, Public Information Officer, Queen Mary Senior Secondary School;
The Appellant states that he has received the information on 18/04/2011. The PIO states that they
received about Rs.2.42cr as grant-in-aid from the Government, whereas the total annual expenditure of the
school including the primary section is about Rs.13.31cr. The Sr. Secondary School is aided by the
Government. The School has however filed a writ in the Delhi High Court no. WP(C) NO.523/2011 on
28/01/2011. Since the school appears to believe that it is not a public authority and has approached the
High Court, it did not provide the information initially. However, after the order of the Commission the
school has provided the information. It appears that the PIO had a reasonable cause for not having
provided the infroamtion initially. In view of this the penalty proceedings are dropped.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission however directs the PIO that unless a stay is obtained from the
High Court, he will have to continue giving information as per the provisions of RTI Act.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RR)
Page 2 of 2