CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01434/SG/00219
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01434
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Bir Bahadur Singh Rathor,
D-30, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi-110064.
Respondent 1 : Mr. B.Tirkey,
PIO& Dy. Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
O/o. Dy. Director of Education,
Distt-West-A, New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi.
RTI filed on : 07/04/2008 ID 473
PIO replied : 21/05/2008
First appeal filed on : 28/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 10/09/2008
Information Sought :
The appellant had filed an appeal under rule 116 of the Delhi School Education rule to the
Directorate of Education on 11/3/2008 to direct the Mahrashya Chunni Lal Saraswati Bal
Mandir at L- Block, Hari Nagar, or the Samiti to pay an enhanced subsistence allowance to
him.
He filed the RTI application asking:
1. What action has been taken by the Directorate of Education on my appeal dated
11/3/2008.
2. The copies of the action taken may kindly be supplied to me alongwith the noting on
the file, which will clarify the whole position;
3. If any action has been taken, the copy of the order is required to be supplied;
4. If the matter is referred to the school/samiti, the copy of the letter may kindly be sent,
so that I may approach the school samiti to get the matter expedited.
The PIO Replied:
‘ In this regard, it is informed that the information sought by you cannot be provided to you
as the matter is sub judice and the same is exempted from disclosure as per section 8 (h) of
RTI Act 2005 as per which disclosure of such information would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.’
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a first appeal. The First appellate authority
Dr. R.K.Sharma ordered on 23/6/08 , ” The reply of the PIO provided to the appellant is
unsatisfactory as such the PIO is directed to provide specific information to the appellant with
reference to the appellant with reference to the action taken by Dy. Director of Education on
his appeal/representation dt. 11.03.2008 addressed to D.E. within 10 days of the receipt of
this order.”
The order of the PIO claiming exemption on the basis of the matter being sub judice is wrong
since there is no such exemption under the RTI act. His claim of taking refuge under Sction 8
(1) (h) is also flawed since he has not given any reasons as to how any investigation could be
impeded or ‘apprehension or prosecution of offendor impeded’, if information of how the
appellant’s representation for enhanced subsistence allowance was acted upon was released.
The PIO did not obey the orders of the First appellate authority and again wrote a letter on
6/8/2008 -40 days after the First appellate authority’s order , ” In this regard, it is informed
that the matter is already sub-judice in the Hon’ble court of law and has been adjourned sine-
die hence the requisite information cannot be supplied.”
The PIO has given no reasons under the law, for defying the orders of the First appellate
authority.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the complete information to the appellant before 30 November, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the information by the 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 Mr. B. Tirkey, 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. It appears the PIO’s actions
attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
He has also refused to abide by the decision of the First appellate authority without assigning
any fresh reasons, and hence appears to be guilty of insubordination of his superior officer
and the First appellate authority. This appears to be a case of willful denial of information
without any reasonable cause.
A showcause notice is being issued to Mr. B. Tirkey to show cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him for delaying giving the information beyond 30 days at the rate of Rs.250
per day of delay. He is directed to present himself before the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on him. He will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 10th December, 2008 at 3.30PM along with his written submission showing
cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20(1). He shall
also produce evidence of having furnished 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
12 November, 2008