CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01071/SG/1828
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01071/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Omprakash Singh
Principal
Jai Bharti Public School
Sudamapuri, West Babarpur,
Delhi – 110032
Respondent : Deputy Commissioner
& Public Information Officer,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
O/o the Deputy Commissioner,
Shahdra North Zone,
Shahdra, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 19/09/2007 ID No. 753
PIO replied : 04/07/2007
First appeal filed on : 10/01/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 28/01/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 16/06/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought action taken on the letter written to Education Department
on 9/02/2007 diary no. 2478 subsequently the appellant written two more request
letters on dated 8/3/2007 and 27/4/2007 respectively.
PIO’s Reply:
Director Primary Education gave point-wise reply stating:
1- As per Delhi Education Act and rule 1973 for recognition of schools there
should be School Fund and Society Fund.
2- As per Delhi Education Act and rule 1973 the account should be in
Nationalized Bank or Past Office. It is important to have the requisite
amount with the bank to show the strength of the school.
3- Interest on amounts deposited in joint account can not be given till school
has its recognition.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered, “On scrutiny of the documents it has been
observed that no information has been provided to the appellant by the PIO. PIO,
Deputy Commissioner, Shah North Zone is directed to ensure that requisite
information is collected by the Deputy Education Officer, Shah. North Zone from the
department who is in position of the information and then provide the same to the
appellant as per the provision of the Act. This exercise should be completed with in
15 days.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Mr. Omprakash Singh
Respondent : Mr. A.K.Singh, P.I.O.
Mr. A.K.Singh the PIO has given a written submission that he had sought the
assistance of Ms. Shanti Soren DEO Shahadra North Zone under Section 5 (4) to
provide the information on 19/9/2007 -the day the RTI application was filed. The
DEO is the holder of the information sought by the appellant. He again gave a
reminder on 3/10/2007 and yet received no reply.
The order of the First appellate authority also evoked no response.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant by the present DEO Mr.
Kanwar Singh before 5 March 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the then DEO who is the deemed PIO within 30 days as required
by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Ms. Shanti
Soren DEO, Sadar Pahargunj Zone, MCD 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 Ms. Shanti Sorn’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20
(1) . A showcause 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.
She will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 March, 2009. She will
also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20th February 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)